Corporate Professional Today - April 21, 2018

код для вставки на сайт или в блог

ссылки на документ

Contents
Volume 41
I
Issue 16
I
April 21 To April 27, 2018
FOUNDER EDITOR :
U.K. BHARGAVA
EDITOR :
RAKESH BHARGAVA
HON. EDITORS :
VINOD K. SINGHANIA (DR.)
V.S. DATEY
COORDINATING EDITOR :
NAVEEN WADHWA
Annual subscription from January - December 2018
is ` 5600. Single copy ` 150 only.
Direct tax Laws
Corporate Professionals Today is published on
every Saturday. Non-receipt of part must be notiﬁed
within 60 days of the due date.
829
Address your editorial and subscription
correspondence to :
836
857
Start-ups get partial exemption from angel
tax
applicability of section 292C presumption
on cash credits found in seized documents
- D.C. aGraWaL
tDS on transmission & wheeling charges
of power transmission companies - MaYank
MOhanka
GSt
831
e-way Bill - Will be a Game Changer under
GSt - vIShaL raheJa
844
high Sea Sale transactions under GSt -
850
export procedure under GSt regime - a
huge sigh of relief - DeBaSISh
nItISh aGnIhOtrI
BanDYOPaDhYaY
Corporate Laws
846
TAXMANN ALLIED SERVICES (P.) LTD.,
59/32, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110 005.
Phones : +91-11-45562222
Fax : +91-11-45577111
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY :
ANSH BHARGAVA on behalf of Taxmann Allied
Services (P.) Ltd. and Printed at Tan Prints (India)
Pvt. Ltd., 44 Km. Mile Stone, National Highway,
Rohtak Road, Village Rohad, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana
(India) and Published at 59/32, New Rohtak Road,
New Delhi-110 005 (India).
EDITOR : RAKESH BHARGAVA
Material published in this part is the exclusive
copyrighted property of Taxmann Allied Services
(P.) Ltd. and cannot be reproduced or copied in any
form or by any means without written permission
of the Publisher.
Editors do not necessarily agree with the views
expressed by authors of articles/features. Views
so expressed are the personal views of author(s).
This publication is sold with the understanding that
authors/editors and publishers are not responsible
for the result of any action taken on the basis of
this work nor for any error or omission to any
person, whether a purchaser of this publication
or not. All disputes are subject to jurisdiction of
the Delhi High Court.
Email : sales@taxmann.com
Website : http//www.taxmann.com
Proposed changes under SeBI (Buy-Back of
Securities) regulations, 2018 - an overview
- nIkIta SnehIL
MODE OF CITATION : [2018] 41 CPT. . .
TOTAL PAGES 60
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 3
E-JOURNAL
i
853
Legal position of winding - up vis-à-vis
insolvency & bankruptcy code - Prateek GattanI,
nIPun SInGhvI
accounts & audit
864
Your Queries on InD-aS - vInaYak PaI v.
Your Queries
867
869
871
Goods and Services tax
Income-tax
Corporate Laws
Weekly review
873
876
880
ii
Goods and Services tax
Income-tax
Corporate Laws
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 4
E-JOURNAL
Start-ups get partial exemption
from angel tax
‘Start-up India’ is an initiative of the Government of India. The
action plan of this initiative is to create a conducive environment
for the startups incorporated in India. As a part of the Action Plan,
the Finance Act, 2016 introduced tax exemptions for start-ups under
Section 80-IAC. An eligible start-up can claim 100% tax deduction
under this provision for certain number of years. A start-up, once
approved by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion
(DIPP), becomes eligible for this tax exemptions.
Every start-up needs an innovative concept and seed funding to
begin its journey. At every stage of business, start-ups look for more
funding from the investors. Fresh capital is raised by the start-up
cos. from the investors by issuing new equity shares, generally at
a price calculated on discounted cash flow method.
In recent times, startups have faced various income-tax proceedings
due to inflated share valuations. For allotment of new equity shares,
start-up cos. are required to submit a valuation report from a
merchant banker or an accountant based on Discounted Free Cash
Flow Method as prescribed in Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Income-tax
Rules, 1962. However, these reports were generally rejected or
modified by the Assessing Officers because of abnormal valuations
done on assumptions. Consequently, additions were made in the
residuary income of start-ups as per provisions of Section 56(2)
(viib). As an immediate relief, the CBDT issued an instruction that
no coercive steps shall be taken against the start-ups for recovery
of outstanding demand.
Since a start-up gets high investment because of its idea, applying
Section 56(2)(viib) to recover the tax on pretext of inflated valuation
would be prejudicial to the interest of the start-up. The DIPP, therefore,
provides a relief to the start-ups by issuing a new notification G.S.R.
2364(E) dated 11-04-2018 (superseding the existing notification GSR 501(E)
23-05-2017). This notification requires Startups to file new Form-1
and Form-2 in order to claim tax incentives.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 5
E-JOURNAL
829
STArT-uPS geT PArTiAl exemPTion from Angel TAx
The application in Form-1 shall be filed
along with prescribed documents before
CBDT to obtain a tax exemption certificate
under Section 80-IAC. The Form-2 shall be
filed by the start-up to claim exemption
from the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib).
No tax shall be levied on start-up in respect
of angel funding, if following conditions are
fulfilled by the start-up:
A. The aggregate amount of paid share
capital and share premium of the startup doesn’t exceed ` 10 crores
830
B. The investor who proposed to subscribe
shares of start-up has average returned
income of ` 25 lakhs or more in last
3 financial years or its net worth is
` 2 crores or more on the last date
of preceding financial year.
C. Start-up has obtained a valuation report
from a merchant banker specifying fair
market value of shares in accordance
with Rule 11UA of the Income-tax
Rules, 1962
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 6
E-JOURNAL
lll
E-way Bill - Will be a Game
Changer under GST
Introduction
After introduction of GST, it was expected that road barriers would be
removed and it would speed up movement of goods to some extent.
However, in absence of physical restrictions on movement of goods,
some control is essential to ensure that goods are not clandestinely
removed and sold. Hence, a system of e-way bill was introduced but
due to technical glitches it was deferred. Now, e-way bill has been
made compulsory from April 1st, 2018 for inter-State movement of
goods. Central Government has notified www.ewaybillgst.gov.in for
generation of e-way bill.
VishaL RaheJa
Ca
Basic Provisions of E-way Bill
1. E-way bill is required for movement of goods from one State
to another, i.e., April 1st, 2018. However, Government has
notified 5 States where E-way bill is required for movement
of goods within State w.e.f. April 15th, 2018. It is noteworthy that e-way bill is required when value of a consignment
exceeds ` 50,000. Generation of e-way bill for value less than
` 50,000 is optional.
2. However, e-way bill must be generated for inter-State movement,
even if value of consignment is below ` 50,000 a. Sending material by Principal inter-State for job work or,
b. handicraft goods transported inter-State under exemption if
turnover of person is below ` 20/10 lakhs
3. If consignor is not registered under GST but consignee is registered, then the consignee is required to generate e-way bill. If
a single consignment is transported in more than one vehicle,
each vehicle should have separate e-way bill. If a single vehicle has more than one consignment then one e-way bill is
required for each consignment irrespective of one consignor
or more than 1 consignor involved in it.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 7
E-JOURNAL
831
e-wAy Bill - will Be A gAme ChAnger under gST
e. Document Date - The date of the
aforesaid document should be supplied.
4. E-way Bill once generated cannot be
changed. Only transport details can be
changed. If there is mistake, only option
is to cancel the e-way bill within 24
hours and generate fresh one. If the
distance of movement of goods is less
than 10 Kms. from place of supplier
to place of transporter, details of conveyance/vehicle may not be furnished.
f. Value of goods - Value as declared
in tax invoice, bill of supply or
delivery challan.
g. HSN Code - Four digits if annual
turnover was above Rs five crores
and two digits if annual turnover is
less than Rs five crores. Minimum
two digits mandatory.
5. If consignor or consignee does not generate e-way bill, transporter himself
must generate e-way bill. If he carries
the goods without e-way bill, his vehicle can be detained, penalty can be
imposed and even vehicle would be
liable to confiscation.
h. Reason for Transportation
2. Then, Part B will be filled up by transporter/supplier/recipient where details
of vehicle carrying goods will be filled
before movement of goods. Following
details are required for filing Part-B:
6. The e-way bill generated is valid for one
day if transport of goods Involves less
than 100 Km. Further, one additional
day is allowed for every 100 Kms after first 100 Km. If goods can not be
transported within that period, fresh
e-way bill should be generated.
a. Vehicle Number for Road
b. Transport Document Number
Note : Part B is to be filled up in by
transporter if goods are booked with
transporter for further delivery.
Procedure for Generation of E-way Bill
Note : Part B is to be filled by consignor
or consignee if the movement of goods
is in own conveyance or hired conveyance or by railways, air or vessel.
The assessee is required to follow these 3
steps to generate e-way bill:
1. Firstly, Part A of Form -GST EWB-01
will be filled electronically by supplier/recipient (or transporter). Here all
details of invoice will be entered. After
filing Part-A, a unique number will be
generated by system. Following details
are required for filing Part-A:
3. After that system will generate e-way
bill number and date and its validity
period.
Miscellaneous Issues
a. GSTIN of supplier
b. GSTIN of recipient
c. Place of Delivery - PIN Code of
place of delivery shall be indicated
d. Document Number - Tax Invoice, Bill
of Supply, Delivery Challan or Bill
of Entry (when goods transported
from port/airport/customs warehouse).
832
1. Unregistered person can also generate e-way
bill - If the movement is caused by an
unregistered person either in his own
conveyance or a hired one or through a
transporter, he or the transporter may,
at their option, generate the e-way bill
in form GST EWB-01 on the common
portal.
2. Tax Invoice or bill of supply to accompany
transport of goods when e-way bill not
required - The person-in-charge of the
conveyance shall carry a copy of the
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 8
E-JOURNAL
e-wAy Bill - will Be A gAme ChAnger under gST
tax invoice or the bill of supply in a
case where such person is not required
to carry an e-way bill.
or rejection within seventy two hours
of the details being made available to
him on the common portal, it shall be
deemed that he has accepted the said
details.
3. Generation and cancellation of e-way Bill
through SMS - The facility of generation and cancellation of e-way bill
is also made available through SMS.
Upon generation of the e-way bill, a
unique e-way bill number (EBN) will
be generated by GSTN. This number
shall be made available to the supplier,
the recipient and the transporter on
the common portal.
4. Information in Part A of E-way Bill can
be used to furnish details in GSTR-1
return - The information furnished in
Part A of form GST EWB-01 shall be
made available to the registered supplier on the common portal who may
utilize the same for furnishing details
in form GSTR-1.
7. Fresh generation of e-way bill if validity
expired - Under circumstances of an
exceptional nature, if the goods cannot
be transported within the validity period of the e-way bill, the transporter
may generate another e-way bill after
updating the details in Part B of form
GST EWB-0.
E-way Bill- Not Required in Several
Cases
E-way bill is not required to be generated
in following cases:
5. Relaxation if goods transported from
place of consignor to transporter or
from transporter to place of consignee,
and distance is less than 10 Km. - If
the goods are transported for a distance
of less than ten kilometers within the
State or Union territory from the place
of business of the consignor to the
place of business of the transporter
for further transportation, the supplier or the transporter may not furnish
the details of conveyance in Part B of
form GST EWB-01. If distance exceeds
10 Kms, e-way bill is required to be
generated.
Similarly, when transporter delivers
goods to ultimate consignee at destination, details of conveyance may not
be furnished in GST EWB-01.
6. Intimation of acceptance of details by recipient/supplier - The supplier/recipient
shall communicate his acceptance or
rejection of the consignment covered
by the e-way bill. If the recipient
does not communicate his acceptance
u
All items (except de-oiled cake) exempted
under GST laws. The major items are
as follows - Fresh Meat, Fish Chicken,
Eggs, Milk, Butter Milk, Curd, Natural
Honey, Fresh Fruits and Vegetables,
coffee beans, wheat, rye, rice, Flour,
Besan, Bread, Prasad, Salt, Bindi, Sindoor, Stamps, Judicial Papers, Printed
Books, Newspapers, Bangles, Pooja
equipment, jute, khadi, national flag,
raw silk.
u
The goods which are transported by a
non-motorised conveyance.
u
The goods are being transported from
the port, airport, air cargo complex
and land customs station to an inland
container depot or a container freight
station for clearance by Customs
u
Each State has been delegated powers
to grant exemptions from provisions
relating to e-way bill.
u
Alcoholic liquor for human consumption.
u
Petroleum crude, HSD, petrol, natural
gas or aviation turbine fuel.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 9
E-JOURNAL
833
e-wAy Bill - will Be A gAme ChAnger under gST
u
E-way bill is not required for transport
of following goods:
physical form for all inter-State and intra-State
movement of goods.
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for
supply to household and non domestic exempted category (NDEC)
customers
1. Physical verification on basis of specific
intelligence
n
n
Kerosene oil sold under PDS
n
Postal baggage transported by Department of Posts
n
Natural or cultured pearls and
precious or semi-precious stones;
precious metals and metals clad
with precious metal (Chapter 71)
n
Natural or cultured pearls and
precious or semi-precious stones;
precious metals and metals clad
with precious metal (Chapter 71)
n
Jewellery, goldsmiths’ and silversmiths’
wares and other articles (Chapter
71)
n
Currency
n
Used personal and household effects
n
Coral, unworked (0508) and worked
coral (9601)
On receipt of specific information on
evasion of tax, physical verification
of a specific conveyance can also be
carried out by any other officer after
obtaining necessary approval of the
Commissioner or an officer authorised
by him in this behalf [proviso to rule
138B(3) of CGST Rules]
2. Inspection and verification of goods during
road checks
A summary report of every inspection
of goods in transit shall be recorded
online by the proper officer in Part A
of FORM GST EWB-03 within twenty
four hours of inspection and the final
report in Part B of FORM GST EWB-03
shall be recorded within three days of
such inspection.
3. No further verification in same State if
once verification done
The physical verification of goods being transported on any conveyance
has been done during transit at one
place within the State or in any other
State, no further physical verification
of the said conveyance shall be carried
out again in the State, unless specific
information relating to evasion of tax
is made available subsequently.
Documents and devices to be carried by a
person-in-charge of a conveyance
The person in charge of a conveyance shall
carry:
1. the invoice or bill of supply or delivery
challan; and
4. Transporter can upload details if vehicle
detained for more than 30 minutes
2. a copy of the e-way bill or the e-way bill
number, either physically or mapped to
a Radio Frequency Identification Device
embedded on to the conveyance
Road checks and Verification of
documents and conveyances
The Commissioner may authorise the proper
officer to intercept any conveyance to verify
the e-way bill or the e-way bill number in
834
If a vehicle has been intercepted and
detained for a period exceeding thirty
minutes, the transporter may upload
the said information in FORM GST
EWB-04 on the common portal.
Concluding remarks
The implementation of e-way for intra-State
movement of goods will be game changer
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 10
E-JOURNAL
e-wAy Bill - will Be A gAme ChAnger under gST
since Government is concerned to raise GST
revenue collections. The applicability of e-way
for inter-State movement of goods on PAN
India basis from April 1st, 2018 and now for
intra-State movement of goods in 5 States
will surely erode tax evasion to huge extent.
On the other hand, transportation service
providers such as GTAs will have to comply
with provisions of GST during transportation
of goods. If there is fault of transporter or
driver in complying with provisions of e-way
bill during movement of goods, such as
movement of goods without e- way bill, then
consignor will face huge penalty. It will raise
disputes between transporter and consignor
in those cases where proper e-way bill has
been generated by consignor but transporter/
driver of vehicle misplaces the documents
required during transit or failed to submit
documents during checking by proper officer.
Therefore, widespread awareness programmes
must be organized to educate such persons to
ensure hassle free implementation of E-way
bill provisions.
l ll
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 11
E-JOURNAL
835
Applicability of section 292C
presumption on cash credits found
in seized documents
Introduction
1. During the course of search and seizure operations, the Revenue
Authorities may find and seize certain loose papers/documents/
books which may contain entries/descriptions regarding financial
transactions or otherwise. Such loose papers/documents/books may
also be impounded during survey u/s. 133A. These loose papers/
documents/books may contain entries of receipt or availability of
funds and their application/outflow in investment/expenditure which
may not be found recorded in the regular books of account on the
basis of which assessee may have filed the return of income. The
receipt or availability of funds may be in the form of cash loans
or cash credit or may be assessee’s own unaccounted money. An
important question arises as to whether AO can apply the test of
“satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of any sum
found credited in the books of an assessee” laid down u/s. 68 of
IT Act, to cash loan or a credit entry found in such loose paper/
document/book seized/impounded during a search/survey, while
passing an assessment order for an assessee, from whose possession
and control such loose papers/documents/books are found, or whether
presumption u/s. 292C may discharge the assessee from explaining
the nature and source of cash loan/credit entry found recorded in
such loose papers/documents/books. The relevant aspects of this
issue are analyzed and discussed in this article.
advocate,
(Former CiT & accountant
Member of iTaT)
Analysis of the issue
2. Above issue is broken up into following segments:
2.1 What is cash loan? - Cash loan indicates inflow of cash as loan.
To term an entry in seized/impounded loose papers/documents/
books as cash loan, there should be clear indication, or admission by
the assessee, of inflow of cash from a lender and liability to repay
the same. The loan may be on interest or without interest, it may
be with security or without security. The loan which is received
836
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 12
E-JOURNAL
D.C. aGRaWaL
APPliCABiliTy of SeCTion 292C PreSumPTion on CASh CrediTS found in Seized doCumenTS
through cheques/drafts and goes into a bank
account (of the assessee or of his associates),
which is not a disclosed bank account, but is
under the control of the assessee will also be
a cash loan. Inflow of cash, or cash through
cheque/draft and credited into the ledger
account of lender in the books of recipient
(in the present case assessee) is called cash
credit within the meaning of Section 68.
continuity between two or more sheets/papers.
In contrast, a diary or a notebook contains
large number of papers which are stapled or
bound or punched together, which gives an
occasion for a continuous writing spread over
a period of time. On the other hand, loose
paper or a single sheet of a paper generally
contains record of memorandum, short notes
or summary of events or of transactions.
2.2 What is a credit entry? - In common
parlance, a credit entry is an accounting
entry acknowledging income or capital items.
A credit entry has significance in accounting
when there is a corresponding debit entry.
Credit entry may arise when purchases are
made on credit or there is an accounting
adjustment. In both these situations there is
no cash flow. When there is a credit entry
in respect of capital items, asset account is
debited and the seller account is credited.
2.5 What is a document? - A document may
be written or printed paper that bears the
original, official, or legal form of something
and can be used to furnish decisive evidence
or information. It can be an agreement, deeds,
will, orders, returns of income, balance sheets
or audited accounts, citations, photographs,
etc., which can be used as an evidence
during dispute or before any Court of law.
A document may contain methodical record
of transactions, events, agreements, etc. It can
be on hard paper, or on electronic media,
or it can be on one sheet or several sheets,
it can be loose, or it can be bound. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramji Dayawala
& Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Invest import AIR 1981
SC 2085 observed that the truth of the facts
stated in the documents had to be proved
by admissible evidence and not by mere
handwriting.
2.3 For which entries Section 68 Applies? Though the heading of Section 68 is cash
credit, it is not confined to credits in cash.
Other credits by way of liabilities are also
covered u/s. 68 and they require explanation
under that Section. [Refer- VISP (P.) Ltd. v.
CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 482/265 ITR 202 (MP);
T.P. Abdulla v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 207 Taxman
24/20 taxmann.com 402 (Ker.) (Mag.)]
The use of the words “any sum found credited
in the books” in Section 68 indicates that the
Section is very widely worded, and the AO is
not precluded from carrying out inquiries in
the nature and source of such sum, may be
cash loan/credit entry or trade credit entry,
share application money, etc. [Refer- CIT v.
Sophia Finance Ltd. [1993] 70 Taxman 69/
[1994] 205 ITR 98 (Delhi)].
2.6 What is a book? - Books of a businessman
in which business transactions are recorded
often consist of cash books, Journals, ledgers
and various other records of accounts.
A book is a written or printed work consisting
of pages glued or sewn together along one
side and bound in covers. This term has been
explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CBI
v. V.C. Shukla AIR 1998 SC 1406 as under-
2.4 What is a loose paper? - Loose means
detached, free, separate, unattached, unbound,
unconnected, unfastened, unlatched, or untied
papers. A loose paper may be a single sheet
of paper on which certain notings may be
recorded. They are not bound. There is no
apparent continuity from one loose paper
to another unless investigation establishes a
“‘Book’ ordinarily means a collection of
sheets of paper or other material, blank,
written, or printed, fastened or bound
together so as to form a material whole.
Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot
be termed as ‘book’ for they can be
easily detached and replaced.”
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 13
E-JOURNAL
837
APPliCABiliTy of SeCTion 292C PreSumPTion on CASh CrediTS found in Seized doCumenTS
Further reference about the concept of book
may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in Sheraton Apparels v.
Asstt. CIT [2002] 123 Taxman 238/256 ITR
20 (Bom.).
A books of account as per Black’s law dictionary
means: “a detailed statement in the nature of
debits and credits between persons and account
of records of debits and credits kept in a book;
a book in which a detailed history of business
transaction is entered; a record of goods sold
or services rendered; statement in detail of the
transactions between the parties.” The books of
account also mean books in which merchants,
traders and businessmen generally keep their
accounts; entries made in the regular course
of business; serial, continues and permanent
memorials of the business affairs.
However, Section 68 refers to the expression
“books of the assessee, maintained for any
previous year” and not “books of account”.
The expression “maintained” signifies that
the books are regularly written and contain
record of financial transactions, such as sale
and purchase, acquisition and disposal of
capital assets, borrowing and payment of
money and of profit and loss in the previous
year. However, Section 68 does not restrict
the maintenance of books only for business
purposes, it could be for the personal purposes
also, but would necessarily contain record of
financial transactions, irrespective of whether it
is for business purposes or personal purposes.
Therefore, a memorandum in the shape of a
book which contains the entries of financial
transactions would fall within the expression
“books of an assessee” within the meaning
of Section 68.
2.7 What is a dumb document? - A document
may be speaking or dumb. It all depends
on whether all the ingredients/components
for levying taxation are clearly decipherable
from the document either on standalone basis
or in association with other documents or
investigation. The components which enter
into the concept of taxation are first, the
transaction/events which attract the levy,
838
second, the person on whom the levy is
imposed and who is obliged to pay the tax,
third, the assessment year in which charge
of income-tax is levied, fourth, whether any
taxable income arises from the transaction
recorded in the document and fifth, the rate
or rates at which tax is to be imposed. The
rates are prescribed in the annual Finance Act
and, therefore, this component has no value
in determining the total income arising from
a seized document. Thus, other four elements
are relevant. [refer- ACIT v. Satyapal Wassan
(2007) 295 ITR (A.T.) 352 (Jbl)]
A charge can be levied on the basis of
document only when the document is a
speaking one. The document should speak
either out of itself or in the company of
other material found on investigation and/or
in the search. The document should be clear
and unambiguous in respect of all the four
components of the charge of tax. If it is not
so, the document is only a dumb document.
No charge can be levied on the basis of a
dumb document.
Thus, a document will be dumb document
where any of the four ingredients is missing
and the AO fails to supplement the missing
ingredient with the help of other documents
or from post-search investigation/inquiries.
Examples of how a document is held as
dumb can be seen in following cases- Asstt.
CIT v. Dr. Kamla Prasad Singh [2010] 3 ITR
(TRIB.) 533 (Pat.); CIT v. Girish Chaudhary
[2007] 163 Taxman 608/[2008] 296 ITR 619
(Delhi); CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [2007] 162
Taxman 3/293 ITR 43 (Delhi); Pankaj Dahyabhai
Patel (Huf) v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 63 TTJ 790
(Ahd.); Ashwani Kumar v. ITO [1991] 39
ITD 183 (Delhi); Pr. CIT v. Ajanta Footcare
(India) (P.) Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 109
(Calcutta); Dy. CIT v. C. Krishna Yadav [2011]
12 taxmann.com 4/[2011] 46 SOT 250 (URO)
(Hyderabad); Harish Textile Engineers Ltd. v.
Dy. CIT [2015] 63 taxmann.com 66/379 ITR
160/[2016] 236 Taxman 420(Bom.)(HC); CIT
v. Jai Pal Aggarwal [2012] 28 taxmann.com
269/[2013] 212 Taxman 1 (Delhi)
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 14
E-JOURNAL
APPliCABiliTy of SeCTion 292C PreSumPTion on CASh CrediTS found in Seized doCumenTS
2.8 Whether loose paper/document can be
called as a book within the meaning of
Section 68? - As explained above, book
has to be a bound record, maintained by
the assessee. Therefore, loose papers/loose
sheets or documents will not fall within the
meaning and scope of books of the assessee
maintained for any previous year. In S.P.
Goyal v. Dy. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mum.)
(TM) it was held by third member that if
the loose papers seized in the premises of
the assessee were examined in the light
of the ratio of the Supreme Court in V.C.
Shukla (supra), it was quite clear that these
loose papers could not be termed as books
of account an assessee maintained for any
previous year. The loose papers did not
contain closing balances or opening balances
and there was no reconciliation of these
entries. Therefore, these could not be termed
as books maintained by the assessee within
the meaning of section 68.
2.9 What are the ingredients of Section 68?
- It has been consistently held by the Courts
that when an assessee claims that he had
borrowed money from a third party, initial
onus lies on the assessee to establish: (i) the
identity of the third party, (ii) ability of the
third party, i.e., his creditworthiness, and (iii)
prima facie the loan is genuine, i.e., genuineness
of loan transactions. When assessee is able
to establish the aforesaid three ingredients,
the onus will shift on the Department to
disprove the same. If there are large number
of such credits, the assessee has to discharge
the burden in respect of each credit. Once
assessee discharges his burden then it is for
the Revenue to disprove with cogent evidence
what is stated by the assessee. For further
details about the nature of three ingredients
one may refer to following Authorities- Shankar
Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal.);
CIT v. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.)
Ltd. [1991] 56 Taxman 304/187 ITR 596 (Cal.);
Oceanic Products Exporting Co. v. CIT [2000]
241 ITR 497 (Kerala); Prem Nath Goel & Co.
v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 340/271 ITR 390
(Delhi); Dr. Chhangur Rai v. CIT [2017] 88
taxmann.com 458/394 ITR 611 (Allahabad);
CIT v. Peoples General Hospital Ltd. [2013] 35
taxmann.com 444/216 Taxman 320/356 ITR
65 (Madhya Pradesh); Riddhi Promoters (P.)
Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 367/232
Taxman 430/377 ITR 641 (Delhi)
2.10 Whether Section 68 can be applied to
entries in loose papers seized/impounded in
search/survey ? - Since loose papers do not
fall within the meaning and scope of “books
of the assessee maintained for the previous
year”, the benefit of deeming fiction u/s. 68
cannot be taken by the AO. However, the
AO is not precluded from considering the
entries made in a speaking document. A loose
paper found during search on standalone
basis cannot be used for making addition
u/s. 68 without the company of any other
supportive material and evidence. (refer-Asstt.
CIT v. Sharad Chaudhary [2015] 55 taxmann.com
324 (Delhi - Trib.); Asstt. CIT v. JP Morgan
India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 12 taxmann.com 2/46
SOT 250(Mumbai))
However, a loose paper considered alongwith
the statement recorded under section 131 can
certainly be considered as relevant material
having evidentiary value. The nature and
details of the transactions can be explained
on the basis of statement recorded u/s.
131/132(4). Further, such statement should
be considered and accepted as a whole if the
Assessing Officer wants to use it in evidence.
The Assessing Officer could not be allowed
to blow hot and cold simultaneously. The
revenue could not be permitted to use that
part of the statement which is beneficial to
it and reject the other part of the statement
which is detrimental to it. The loose papers
are maintained and kept by the assessee for
his private knowledge and information and
not meant for disclosing to the department.
If the statement of the assessee was to be
rejected in toto, then no addition could be
made on the basis of loose papers since those
would be dumb papers. If the statement
of the assessee was accepted in toto, then
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 15
E-JOURNAL
839
APPliCABiliTy of SeCTion 292C PreSumPTion on CASh CrediTS found in Seized doCumenTS
contents of the statement were to be accepted
and the borrowings mentioned in those loose
papers had to be accepted as genuine. (referChander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 71
ITD 245 (PUNE))
2.11 Loose papers/documents/books seized/
impounded in search/survey should be relied
upon as a whole - As pointed out above
in the case of S.P. Goyal v. DCIT (supra) a
document found in the search/survey has
to be relied upon as a whole. There is no
discretion available with the Revenue or the
assessee to rely upon a part of the document
favourable to it and plead for rejection of the
other part which is not favourable to it, or
in respect of which no supporting material
is found. However, in certain circumstances
some part of the seized document has to
be ignored for the reason that it may not
represent any financial transaction or is only
scribblings not decipherable. But in general,
the contents of the document seized have to
be accepted as true irrespective of whether it
is favourable to assessee or Revenue. [referChander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt. CIT (supra)].
For the proposition that a seized document
should be read as a whole, reference may be
made to the following Authorities- Dhanvarsha
Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006]
102 ITD 375 (Pune); Asstt. CIT v. Omprakash
& Co. [2003] 132 Taxman 99 (Mag.)/[2004] 2
SOT 1 (Mum.); Vivek Kumar Kathotia v. Dy.
CIT [2013] 32 taxmann.com 331/142 ITD
394 (Kolkata - Trib.); CIT v. D.D. Gears Ltd.
[2012] 25 taxmann.com 562/211 Taxman 8
(Delhi)(Mag.)
other documents are in the handwriting of
such person. The Finance Act, 2008 extended
the operation of this Section to books of
account/documents impounded during survey
and books of account/documents/assets
requisitioned u/s. 132A.
Prior to insertion of Section 292C presumption
about books of account/documents as to the
truthfulness of their contents or they belonged
to the person from whose possession and
control they were found was also provided
u/s. 132(4A). However, Courts have held that
such presumption u/s. 132(4A) is available
only to the summary proceedings u/s. 132(5)
and could not be extended to assessment
proceedings. Section removed this deficiency
and enabled the Authorities to invoke the
presumption in any proceedings under the Act.
When two Sections 132(4A) and 292C are
compared, one finds a common factor, i.e.,
“may be presumed”. The Hon’ble Apex Court
in P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman
325/287 ITR 209 (SC) explained the concept
of presumptions and expression “may be
presumed” as under-
Presumption u/s. 292C
3. Section 292C inserted by the Finance Act,
2007 w.r.e.f. 01-10-1975 provides presumption as
to assets, books of account, etc., to the effect
that (i) such assets, books of account, etc.,
belong to the person from whose possession
and control they were seized; (ii) that the
contents of such books of account and other
documents are true and (iii) signature; and
every other part of such books of account and
840
“22. A presumption is an inference of
fact drawn from other known or proved
facts. It is a rule of law under which
courts are authorized to draw a particular
inference from a particular fact. It is
of three types, (i) “may presume”, (ii)
“shall presume” and (iii) “conclusive
proof”. “May presume” leaves it to the
discretion of the Court to make the
presumption according to the circumstances
of the case. “Shall presume” leaves no
option with the Court not to make the
presumption. The Court is bound to
take the fact as proved until evidence is
given to disprove it. In this sense such
presumption is also rebuttable. “Conclusive
proof gives an artificial probative effect
by the law to certain facts. No evidence
is allowed to be produced with a view
to combating that effect. In this sense,
this is irrebuttable presumption”
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 16
E-JOURNAL
APPliCABiliTy of SeCTion 292C PreSumPTion on CASh CrediTS found in Seized doCumenTS
Earlier similar view was expressed by the
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Pushkar
Narain Sarraf v. CIT [1990] 50 Taxman 213
(All.). This view of the Hon’ble Allahabad
High Court was affirmed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in P. R. Metrani v. CIT (supra).
The expression “may be presumed” raises
a rebuttable presumption. Therefore, the
onus is on one who contends otherwise,
i.e., who challenges the said presumption,
which considers/presumes the apparent as
real. The scope of this presumption was also
explained by the various Courts/Tribunal in
following cases- Asstt. CIT v. Vatika Greenfield
(P.) Ltd. [2009] 121 TTJ 208 (Delhi); CIT v.
Devendra Kumar Singhal [2014] 45 taxmann.
com 148/223 Taxman 44 (Allahabad) (Mag.);
Vivek Kumar Kathotia (supra) as quoted in
Fort Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 29
taxmann.com 84 (Kolkata - Trib.); Nirmal
Fashions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 25 SOT
387 (Kolkata); Surendra M. Khandhar v. Asstt.
CIT [2010] 321 ITR 254 (Bom.).
Whether Section 292C is applicable to
regular books of account also?
4. In the course of the search/survey the
Authorities may come across regular books
of account as well as undeclared books of
account/document/loose papers. The expression
“found” used in Section 292C as well as
in Section 132 makes distinction clear. This
expression indicates discovery. Regular books
of account cannot be said to be “found”
because they are already in the knowledge of
the Department as they are declared and form
the basis for declaring income. It is other set
of account which is undisclosed which can be
said to be “found” or discovered during the
course of the search u/s. 132 or survey u/s.
133A. In Section 132(1) also it is mentioned
that inspite of summons being issued, the
person would not produce or cause to be
produced any books of account/documents
which will be useful or relevant to income
tax proceedings. Entire search and seizure
operation is based on the reasoning that the
person searched is in possession and control
of books of account/documents which are not
intended to be disclosed to the Department.
They are found during the course of the
search and subsequently seized. [refer- Clauses
(iib) and (iii) of Section 132(1)] Therefore,
the presumption provided u/s. 292C can be
raised only in respect of undisclosed books of
account. So far as declared books of account
are concerned, there is no dispute that they
would belong to the person who has filed the
return of income on its basis, there will also
not be any dispute regarding true nature of
contents of such declared books of account/
documents as all transactions recorded therein
are accepted as true while filling the return
of income. Hence, presumption u/s. 292C
is invokable only in respect of undisclosed
books of account/document found and seized/
impounded during the course of the search/
survey.
Whether Section 292C alters the burden
cast u/s. 68 and if yes, then to what
extent?
5. An important issue arises whether the onus
lying on the assessee u/s. 68 in respect of
undeclared books of account seized/impounded
in the search/survey is to be discharged to
the same extent and in the same manner
as is required to be discharged in respect
of declared books of account which form
the basis of filling return of income. It is
already submitted above, that Section 292C
is applicable to undeclared books of account
found and seized during the course of the
search. Clause (ii) of Section 292C(1) enables
the adjudicating Authority to raise a rebuttable
presumption that the contents of such books
of account and other documents are true. So
far as loose papers are concerned, which are
seized in the search and have an entry of cash
inflow, are not books of account, therefore,
burden cast u/s. 68 cannot be attributed in
respect of such loose papers. However, so
far as undeclared books, where cash credit
entry in some name is found, are concerned,
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 17
E-JOURNAL
841
APPliCABiliTy of SeCTion 292C PreSumPTion on CASh CrediTS found in Seized doCumenTS
a presumption u/s. 292C can be raised to the
effect that contents of such books are true,
which means that correctness or truthfulness
of cash inflow as cash credit is presumed
to be true. It also means that transaction in
respect of borrowing of cash is true, i.e., cash
has come. Once the fact of cash coming to
the assessee is presumed to be true then the
question of establishing genuineness of the
transaction and creditworthiness will not arise.
Thus, Section 292C curtails/reduces the burden
cast on the assessee to the extent that he is
not required to prove creditworthiness of the
creditor and genuineness of the transaction
in respect of credit entry found recorded in
seized undisclosed books of account as these
two ingredients are proved by presumption
u/s. 292C. Otherwise Section 292C will loose
significance and will become redundant/otiose
and, therefore, undisclosed books of account/
documents will be placed at par with regular
books of account which is not the intention
of the legislature.
However, burden to establish the identity
of the lender is relevant in the context of
applicability of Section 68 to a credit entry
found recorded in the seized book for several
reasons. The first is - if on the left-hand
side of the books of account seized, shows
the name and the amount, then the factum
of receipt/availability of money is presumed
to be true but there is no presumption
that the person named is a living/existing
person. Secondly, if name is recorded in an
abbreviated form then onus would lie on the
assessee to decipher the same. There is no
presumption that money would come from
some unknown/hypothetical/non-existent person.
Thirdly, if the seized book shows investment/
expenditure out of money so received as
cash credit and assessee takes the benefit of
such cash inflow (as cash loan/cash credit)
in out flow for investment/expenditure then
availability of cash is confirmed to be true,
then in absence of identifiable person, inflow
from outside source cannot be accepted as
true. In such circumstances, section 69/69A
842
can be invoked as inflow of money from
outside source (by identifying the person
who has paid the money as cash credit) is
not established.
Where seized book does not show any
investment/expenditure and the identity
of the creditor is not established then the
corresponding document becomes dumb and no
taxable income can be computed on that basis.
Therefore, wherever seized books of account
show proven/admitted outflow/investment
in addition to cash credit, it is imperative
on the part of the assessee to identify the
lender, otherwise AO can successfully make
addition u/s. 69/69A.
Discharging of onus u/s. 68 in respect of
seized papers/documents/books
6. As explained above, in respect of credit
entry found recorded in the seized paper/
books of account, the onus of the assessee is
limited to identify the lender and support the
contents of seized loose paper/books of account
through an Affidavit of the self and Affidavit
of the lender. No further onus would lie on
the assessee to prove the creditworthiness
of the lender or the genuineness of the
transaction, as these two ingredients stand
proved by presumption u/s. 292C.
There may be different situations under which
degree of burden on the assessee may vary
in respect of loan entry found recorded in
the seized document loose paper/books.
(i) In seized books of account where the lender
is identifiable - Where the lender from
whom cash loan/credit entry is found
recorded in the seized books is identifiable and the lender also confirms
through his Affidavit or confirmation,
then the contents of the document
showing loan entry stand proved and
the presumption “may be presumed”
u/s. 292C takes the colour and scope
of “shall be presumed” and onus would
lie on the Revenue to disprove what
is stated in the document, and by the
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 18
E-JOURNAL
APPliCABiliTy of SeCTion 292C PreSumPTion on CASh CrediTS found in Seized doCumenTS
lender/assessee. If this onus is not
discharged by the Revenue, the loan
entry cannot be treated as income. There
is no further onus on the assessee to
prove the creditworthiness of the lender
or genuineness of the transaction.
(ii) In seized books of account where the lender
is not identifiable - if the seized books
of account do not provide any detail
such as date of receipt of the loan, and
its application, i.e., only an amount and
name are mentioned and the document
is silent as to whether it is a loan or
it is a payment or it is some other
number, then the document would fall
in the category of dumb document. No
addition can be made on the basis of
dumb document.
(iii) Where the lender is not identifiable but
seized books of account provide other details
- where the investment/expenditure/
outflow recorded in the seized book is
proved by admission of the assessee or
other evidence then the onus would be
on the assessee to provide the identity
of the lender and if he fails to do so,
then the case would fall within the
scope of Section 69/69A.
(iv) In respect of loose papers - no onus lies
u/s. 68 in respect of credit entry found
recorded in the loose papers. Where no
further details except name and amount
are mentioned, the document will be
dumb then no addition is called for.
Where document shows outflow(which
can be proved by other evidence), also
or other details, it would be necessary
to identify the lender for explaining
outflow otherwise Section 69/69A can
be invoked. Where neither lender can
be identified, nor outflow can be established, even though the contents
of the document are presumed to be
true, no taxable income would arise
as there is no evidence other than the
document itself. It will not be proper
to accept that part of the document
which shows outflow as true(without
being substantiated or admitted by the
assessee) and levy tax on that basis
and reject other part of the document
which shows inflow of money. If there
is any imbalance in the sense that outflow is more as compared to inflow,
and assessee fails to prove the inflow
of difference, the same can be taxed
u/s. 69/69A.
Conclusion
7. The Revenue Authorities cannot apply the
test of “satisfactory explanation about the
nature and source of any sum found recorded
in the books of the assessee” laid down u/s.
68 of the IT Act, to cash loan or a credit
entry found in a loose paper, document or
book seized/impounded during a search/
survey, while passing an order u/s. 143(3) in
the same way and to the same extent as it is
applied to a cash credit entry found recorded
in the regular books of the assessee because
(i) loose papers seized/impounded, are not
books of the assessee within the meaning of
Section 68; (ii) Section 292C is applicable in
favour of assessee also and, therefore, the
transaction recorded in loose papers/books of
account seized/impounded has to be accepted
as true unless proved with cogent evidence,
as untrue by the party claiming so.
However, the identity of the lender in whose
name inflow of money is recorded as loan/
credit in the seized books/loose papers,
requires to be proved by the assessee by way
of an Affidavit/confirmation, PAN, address/
Aadhaar of the lender. The assessee can also
file his Affidavit in support of the seized
document. The proof of identity is required
because mere name recorded in the seized
paper/books of account is not sufficient to
establish the inflow of money by way of
cash loan/cash credit.
l ll
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 19
E-JOURNAL
843
High Sea Sale transactions
under GST
Meaning of High Sea Sales
1. High Sea Sales, from the point of view of an entity incorporated in
India, refer to the sale of goods which is made after the goods cross
the Custom Barriers of the Foreign Nation before crossing (entering)
the Custom frontiers of India by way of transfer of document of title.
Definition of Non-taxable Territory
2. As per Section 2(79) of the CGST Act, 2017- Non-taxable territory
means the territory which is outside the taxable territory. A taxable
territory means the territory to which the provision of GST Law
applies. Accordingly, in CGST law the taxable territory would cover
all locations covered under the extent of law., i.e., whole of India.
Accordingly, locations outside India would be considered as nontaxable territories, being the territories outside taxable territory.
l
In this regard, it would be relevant to understand the geographical
extent covered within the meaning of the term “India”.
Supply taking place in a “non-taxable territory” would be outside
the jurisdiction for imposing any GST. High Sea Sales (first supply)
are not liable to GST.
Nature of supply in case of “High Sea sale” transactions
3. As per section 7(2) of the IGST Act, 2017 supply of goods imported
into territory of India, till they cross custom frontiers of India, shall
be treated a supply of goods in the course of inter-State trade or
commerce.
Custom frontiers of India include:(a) Custom Port
(b) Custom Airport
(c) International Courier Terminal
(d) Foreign Post Office
(e) Land Custom Stations
844
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 20
E-JOURNAL
niTish aGnihoTRi
Ca
high SeA SAle TrAnSACTionS under gST
(f) Area in which imported goods meant
for export are ordinarily kept before
clearance by Custom Authorities.
4.2 Transaction commences outside the territory
of India but is concluded by entering into
the territory of India.
(g) Bonded Warehouse
For example:- Goods have been imported
from France by a company incorporated
and registered in Nasik which have landed
at Mumbai port but during their clearance
are supplied by the Nasik based company
to accompany in Pune, this supply continues
to be in the course of inter-State trade or
commerce. Even though the supplier is in
Nasik and the recipient is in Pune, since
the goods have not yet crossed the customs
frontiers of India at the time of supply this
supply would come within the operation of
section 7(2) of the IGST.
Where a transfer of documents of title takes
place during import, the question of payment
of tax by the importer would not arise since
the documents of title would be transferred
before the goods cross the customs frontiers
of India.
It has been clarified vide Circular No.- 33/2017Customs dated 1st August 2017, that IGST
on High Sea Sales transaction on imported
goods, whether one or multiple, shall be levied
and collected only at the time of importation,
i.e., when the import declarations are filed
before the Customs authorities for the customs
clearance purposes for the first time.
Kinds of transactions in High Sea sale
4. In case of high sea sale there can be
following 2 kinds of transactions4.1 Transaction commences outside the territory
of India and is concluded also outside
territory of India.
For example - A company in Germany supplies
goods from Germany to another company in
Sri Lanka — this is not a supply in the course
of inter-State trade or commerce, because it
commences and concludes outside the territory
of India. It would be so, even if the goods
were supplied by the company in Germany
from Germany to a customer incorporated
in India if the goods are not ‘brought’ into
India but sold in high seas to yet another
company in Singapore.
In order to ensure that every supply comes
within the operation of section 7(2) of the
IGST Act it requires that the resultant effect
of the supply must cause the goods to enter
the territory of India.
This Act does not enjoy extra-territorial jurisdiction and is limited to imposing tax if the
goods are imported into the territory of India.
The same is supported by Authority of Advance
Rulings Kerala Order No.- CT/2275/18-3 dated
March 26, 2018.
Transactions taking place before filing of
bill of entry are termed as “high sea sales”
transactions under common trade practice
where the original importer sells the goods
to a third person before the goods are
entered for customs clearance. This supply is
covered within definition of inter-State supply.
Provisions of section 3(12) of the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975 inasmuch as in respect of
imported good provide that all duties, taxes,
cess’, etc., shall be collected at the time of
importation, i.e., when the import declarations
are filed before the customs authorities for
the customs clearance purposes.
High sea sale transactions, though are regarded
as supplies in the course of inter-State trade
or commerce, are not subject to levy of IGST
as the supply takes place before filing of Bill
of entry and IGST in case of importation of
goods can be levied at the time of filing of
Bill of Entry.
Hence, IGST on high sea sale(s) transactions
of imported goods, whether one or multiple,
shall be levied and collected only at the time
of importation.
Conclusion
5. Goods are liable to IGST when they are
imported into India and the IGST is payable
at the time of importation of goods into India.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 21
E-JOURNAL
l ll
845
Proposed changes under
SEBI (Buy-Back of Securities)
Regulations, 2018 - An overview
Introduction
1. SEBI at its meeting held on March 28, 20181 has approved of the
proposal of undertaking a public consultation process for reviewing
the SEBI (Buy-Back of Securities) Regulations, 1998 (Regulations, 1998)
with an objective of simplifying the language, removing redundant
provisions and inconsistencies, updating the references to the
Companies Act, 2013/other new SEBI Regulations, and incorporating
the relevant circulars, FAQs, informal guidance in the regulations,
wherever possible. The present Article presents a brief of the changes
as suggested in the discussion paper by the SEBI:
2. Overview of changes suggested in discussion proper by SEBI
Manager,
Vinod Kothari & Company
2.1 Maximum limit of buy-back of securities :
2.1.1 Proposed provision[New insertion] - The maximum limit of any
buy-back shall be twenty-five per cent or less of the aggregate of
paid-up capital and free reserves of the company:
Explanation - In respect of the buy-back of equity shares in any
financial year, the reference to twenty-five per cent in this regulation
shall mean its total paid-up equity capital in that financial year;
u
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory change, updating reference to
provisions of Section 68 (2)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013.
2.2 Ratio of the aggregate of secured and unsecured debts :
2.2-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] - The ratio of the aggregate of
secured and unsecured debts owed by the company after buy-back
shall not be more than twice the paid-up capital and free reserves:
Provided that the Central Government may, by an order, notify a
higher ratio of the debt to capital and free reserves for a class or
classes of companies.
846
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 22
E-JOURNAL
niKiTa snehiL
ProPoSed ChAngeS under SeBi (Buy-BACk of SeCuriTieS) regulATionS, 2018 - An oVerView
u
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory change,
updating reference to provisions of
Section 68 (2)(d) of the Companies Act,
2013.
2.3 Fully paid-up securities :
2.3-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] - All
shares or other specified securities for buyback shall be fully paid-up.
u
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory change,
updating reference to provisions of
Section 68 (2)(e) of the Companies Act,
2013
2.4 Reduction of share capital :
(a) through any subsidiary company including its own subsidiary companies;
(b) through any investment company or
group of investment companies; or
(c) if a default is made by the company
in the repayment of deposits accepted
either before or after the commencement
of the Companies Act, interest payment
thereon, redemption of debentures or
preference shares or payment of dividend to any shareholder, or repayment
of any term loan or interest payable
thereon to any financial institution or
banking company:
2.4-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] - A
company shall not allow buy-back of its
shares unless the consequent reduction of
its share capital is effected.
u
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory change,
updating reference to provisions of
Section 67(1) of the Companies Act,
2013
2.5 Buy-Back can be undertaken through :
u
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory change,
updating reference to provisions of
Section 70 of the Companies Act,
2013.
2.7 Restrictions on further issuance of the
same kind of shares or other securities post
buy-back :
2.5-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] :
(a) its free reserves;
(b) the securities premium account; or
(c) the proceeds of the issue of any shares
or other specified securities:
Provided that no such buy-back shall be
made out of the proceeds of an earlier issue
of the same kind of shares or same kind of
other specified securities.
u
Provided that the buy-back is not prohibited, if the default is remedied and
a period of three years has lapsed after
such default ceased to subsist.
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory change,
updating reference to provisions of
Section 68 (1) of the Companies Act,
2013.
2.7-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] - Where
a company completes a buy-back of its shares
or other specified securities, it shall not make
a further issue of the same kind of shares
or other securities including allotment of
new shares under applicable provisions of
Companies Act or other specified securities
within a period of six months except by
way of a bonus issue or in the discharge
of subsisting obligations such as conversion
of warrants, stock option schemes, sweat
equity or conversion of preference shares or
debentures into equity shares.
2.6 Restrictions on purchase of own shares
or securities :
2.6-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] - No
company shall directly or indirectly purchase
its own shares or other specified securities:
u
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory change,
updating reference to provisions of
Section 68(8) of the Companies Act,
2013.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 23
E-JOURNAL
847
ProPoSed ChAngeS under SeBi (Buy-BACk of SeCuriTieS) regulATionS, 2018 - An oVerView
2.8 Authorization/approval for buy-back :
2.8-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] - The
company shall not authorise any buy-back
(whether tender offer or from open market
or odd lot) unless:
2.11 Exemption from seeking shareholder’s
approval :
2.11-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] Nothing contained in sub-regulation (iv) of
this regulation shall apply to a case where—
(a) The buy-back is authorised by the company’s articles;
(a) the buy-back is, ten per cent or less of
the total paid-up equity capital and
free reserves of the company; and
(b) Except otherwise specified in this regulation, a special resolution has been
passed at a general meeting of the
company authorising the buy-back;
u
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory change, updating reference to
provisions of Section 68(2) of the
Companies Act, 2013.
2.9 Max tenure to complete the buy-back
process :
2.9-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] - Every
buy-back shall be completed within a period
of one year from the date of passing of the
special resolution at general meeting, or the
resolution passed by the board of directors
of the company, as the case may be.
u
(b) such buy-back has been authorised by
the Board of Directors of the company
by means of a resolution passed at its
meeting;
u
2.12 Mode of dispatch :
2.12-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] :
1. Letter of Offer may also be dispatched
through electronic mode in accordance
with the provisions of the Companies
Act.
2. On receipt of a request from any shareholder to receive a copy of the letter
of offer in physical format, the same
shall be provided.
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory change,
updating reference to provisions of
Section 68(4) of the Companies Act,
2013.
3. The aforesaid shall be disclosed in the
letter of offer.
2.10 Filing of form post the completion of
the buy-back :
2.10-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] - The
company shall, after the completion of the
buy-back, file with the Registrar of Companies
and the Board, a return containing such
particulars relating to the buy-back within
thirty days of such completion, in the format
as may be specified.
u
848
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory change,
updating reference to provisions of
Section 68 (10) of the Companies Act,
2013.
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory
change, updating reference to provisions of Section 68 (2)(b) of the
Companies Act, 2013
u
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory
change, updating reference to provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.
2.13 Participation of an eligible public
shareholder, who does not receive the tender
offer/offer form :
2.13-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] Even if an eligible public shareholder does
not receive the tender offer/offer form, he
may participate in the buy-back offer and
tender shares in the manner as provided
by the Board.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 24
E-JOURNAL
ProPoSed ChAngeS under SeBi (Buy-BACk of SeCuriTieS) regulATionS, 2018 - An oVerView
VK&Co. Comments - The proposed amendment
has been brought to safeguard the interest
of the shareholders.
2.14 Rights of an unregistered shareholder to
participate in the buy-back process :
2.14-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] - An
unregistered shareholder may also tender his
shares for buy-back by submitting the duly
executed transfer deed for transfer of shares
in his name, along with the offer form and
other relevant documents as required for
transfer, if any.
VK&Co. Comments - The proposed amendment
has been brought to safeguard the interest
of the shareholders.
prescribed in sub-section (9) of section 77A
of the Companies Act.”
2.16-2 Proposed provision - “Where a company
buys back its shares or other specified
securities under these regulations, it shall
maintain a register of the shares or securities
so bought, the consideration paid for the
shares or securities bought back, the date of
cancellation of shares or securities, the date
of extinguishing and physically destroying the
shares or securities and such other particulars
as may be prescribed in sub-section (9) of
section 68 of the Companies Act.”
u
2.15 SEBI’s power to allow tendering of
shares and settlement of the same, through
the stock exchange mechanism :
2.15-1 Existing provision - “The acquirer or
promoter shall facilitate tendering of shares
by the shareholders and settlement of the
same, through the stock exchange mechanism
as specified by the Board.”
2.15-2 Proposed provision - “The company
shall facilitate tendering of shares by the
shareholders and settlement of the same,
through the stock exchange mechanism in
the manner as provided by the Board.”
u
VK&Co. Comments - The proposed amendment makes the entire company responsible for facilitation of the tendering of
shares and its settlement. Earlier the
responsibility was only limited to the
promoters/acquirer.
2.16 Register of shares or other securities
which have been bought-back :
2.16-1 Existing provision - “The company shall
maintain a record of security certificates
which have been cancelled and destroyed as
VK&Co. Comments - Clarificatory change,
updating reference to provisions of
Section 68 of the Companies Act, 2013
read with Rule 17 (12)(a) of the Companies (Share Capital and Debenture)
Rules, 2014.
2.17 Interest bearing escrow account :
2.17-1 Proposed provision [New insertion] - The
cash component of the escrow account may
be maintained in an interest bearing account,
provided that the merchant banker ensures
that the funds are available at the time of
making payment to shareholders.
VK&Co. Comments - The proposed amendment
will eliminate the loss of interest of the
amounts, deposited by the companies in the
escrow account.
2.18 Deletion of certain provisions :
The entire provisions related to:
(a) Power of the Board to order investigation;
(b) Duty to produce records, etc.;
(c) Submission of Report to the Board
under Regulation 1998, has been deleted
l ll
1 https://www.sebi.gov.in/media/press-releases/mar-2018/sebi-board-meeting_38473.html
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 25
E-JOURNAL
849
Export procedure under GST
regime- A huge sigh of relief
Introduction
1. Implementation of GST has brought about a sea change in the
procedural landscape of cross-border transactions. GST has impacted
many aspects of businesses in the country-most importantly, Indian
exports have been hit badly due to introduction of such a big ticket
reform without having adequate pre-planned measures or safeguards
in place. It is always difficult to foresee unintended consequences of
formulating a policy. Sometimes such factors may cause havoc on
the entire economic health of the country. Going by the common
sentiments that have been buzzing around in the trade that hasty
implementation of the GST almost immediately after demonetisation,
led to our export sectors witnessing such a sorry state of turmoil
resulting into slowdown of our economic growth. Post-GST exports
have been suffering from many challenges, such as liquidity crisis,
blockage of refunds, issues related to procedural rationalization, etc.
This article is to discuss about one of such procedural challenge
faced by the export community in the country, i.e., furnishing of
Bond/Letter of Undertaking (LUT) for exports without payment of
integrated tax.
Exports under Bond/Letter of Undertaking
2. Procedures for exports of goods under the GST regime are laid
down in Rule 96A of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017. The
relevant extract of the said Rule is given below;
“RULE 96A. Refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods
or Services under bond or Letter of Undertaking. - (1) Any
registered person availing the option to supply goods or services
for export without payment of integrated tax shall furnish, prior to
export, a bond or a Letter of Undertaking in FORM GST RFD-11
to the jurisdictional Commissioner, binding himself to pay the tax
due along with the interest specified under sub-section (1) of section
50 within a period of -
850
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 26
E-JOURNAL
Debasish
banDyopaDhyay
LL.b, pGDFM
exPorT ProCedure under gST regime- A huge Sigh of relief
(a) fifteen days after the expiry of three
months [or such further period as may
be allowed by the Commissioner] from
the date of issue of the invoice for
export, if the goods are not exported
out of India; or
(b) fifteen days after the expiry of one year,
or such further period as may be allowed by the Commissioner, from the
date of issue of the invoice for export,
if the payment of such services is not
received by the exporter in convertible
foreign exchange.……….”
In this regard, Board has also issued Notification
No. 37/2017 - Central Tax dated 4th October,
2017 specifying the related conditions and
safeguards for furnishing a Letter of Undertaking
in place of a Bond by a registered person
who intends to supply goods or services
for export without payment of integrated
tax as under;
(i) Exporters without payment of integrated
tax shall be eligible to furnish a Letter
of Undertaking in place of a bond
except those who have been prosecuted for any offence under the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or
the Integrated Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 or any of the existing laws
in force in a case where the amount
of tax evaded exceeds two hundred
and fifty lakh rupees;
(ii) The Letter of Undertaking shall be
furnished on the letter head of the
registered person, in duplicate, for a
financial year in the annexure to FORM
GST RFD - 11;
(iii) Where the registered person fails to pay
the tax due along with interest, within
the prescribed period, the facility of
export without payment of integrated tax will be deemed to have been
withdrawn.
Circular No. 8/8/2017-GST dated 4th October,
2017, has clarified that exporters shall furnish
the duly filled up FORM GST RFD-11 to the
jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner
having jurisdiction over their principal place
of business. It is also clarified that the LUT
shall be furnished on the letter head of the
registered person in duplicate along with selfdeclaration to the effect that the conditions
of LUT have been fulfilled. Accordingly, it
has been prescribed that the LUT shall be
accepted unless there is specific information
otherwise.
Procedural Bottlenecks
3. At this stage it is significant to note that
in spite of liquidity complications, exporters
have been putting a brave front but the
procedural challenges or regulatory roadblocks
are severely hurting their businesses and
affecting their ability to be competitive in
international markets. While, the Government
has all along been responsive and trying to
smoothen the processes but the obstinacy
and inflexibility of the field formations are
throwing the entire system out of gear in
terms of smooth implementation of procedural
reforms. Thus, it has widely been reported
that the exporters have been facing grave
difficulties in submitting LUT with the
jurisdictional officers having jurisdiction over
their principal place of business. It has been
observed that procedures to submit LUT
manually to the jurisdictional officer have
become a matter of great difficulty and are
fraught with complexities, since humongous
documents are being insisted upon by the
department making a complete departure
from the intended policy of the government.
It is seen that the following documents are
being asked for by the field formations for
submission physically along with the LUT:
Furthermore, in order to promote consistency
and uniformity in the trade, Board, vide
u
Covering letter requesting acceptance of
LUT,
u
Copy of GST Registration Certificate,
u
GST FORM RFD-11- in duplicate,
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 27
E-JOURNAL
851
exPorT ProCedure under gST regime- A huge Sigh of relief
u
Annexure- Letter of Undertaking (LUT)in duplicate,
u
Identity proof of witnesses signing on
LUT,
u
Self-Declaration on letter-head that the
entity has not been prosecuted for any
offence under GST Act, or any of the
existing laws in force in a case where
the amount of tax evaded exceeds two
hundred and fifty lakh rupees,
u
Incorporation documents of the entity,
u
Identity Proof of Director/Partner/Proprietor, signing the documents,
u
Copy of Trade Licence of the entity,
u
Copy of IEC code, etc.
It is abundantly clear from the above that
in absence of proper implementation of any
process or due to high-handedness applied by
the field formations in implementation, whole
objective and the purpose of any reform may
get jeopardised leading to ambiguity and
confusion in the trade. It is not understandable
as to why the department needs so many
documents physically for such a simple
process? Is it not a complete disregard of
the government’s intent and policy of digital
India!
Bold Step Forward
4. At this juncture it is inspiring to note that
the Board has acted rapidly and in order
to resolve the matter, issued Circular No.
40/14/2018 - GST dated 06.04.2018 addressing
certain issues relating to furnishing of Bond/
LUT giving substantial relief to the export
community. Accordingly, in partial modification
of Circular No. 8/8/2017-GST dated 4th
October, 2017, sub-paras (c), (d) and (e) of
para 2 of the said Circular are modified as
follows:
852
u
An LUT shall be deemed to be accepted
as soon as an acknowledgement for the
same bearing the Application Reference
Number (ARN) is generated online.
u
No document needs to be physically
submitted to the jurisdictional office
for acceptance of LUT.
u
If it is discovered that an exporter whose
LUT has been so accepted was ineligible
to furnish an LUT in place of bond as
per Notification No. 37/2017-Central
Tax, then the exporter’s LUT will be
liable for rejection.
Thus, the execution of LUT has again been
made plain and simple by mandating that
the online submission of LUT shall suffice to
be considered as acceptance of LUT in case
an acknowledgement for the same, bearing
the ARN, is generated online. There is no
requirement of physical submission of the
same to the jurisdictional office. This is not
only a bold initiative by the government but
a true reflection of its intent of making the
administration free of regulatory bottlenecks.
Conclusion
5. The country needs a robust tax administration
in such trying times of economic reforms.
Therefore, it is hoped that by promoting
clarity and certainty in tax administration,
the government should take appropriate
measures or issue necessary directions to the
field formations in order to make the export
procedures free of regulatory blockages in the
GST regime. However, the simplification of
measures through Circular No. 40/14/2018 GST has brought huge sigh of relief to the
exporter community of the country.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 28
E-JOURNAL
l ll
Legal position of winding-up vis-àvis insolvency & bankruptcy code
Introduction
1. Winding up proceedings were Earlier initiated and conducted
under the Companies Act, 1956 (‘1956 Act’). However, with the
coming into force of the Companies Act, 2013, and the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the process underwent a change.
The 1956 Act provided a statutory right to file a winding up petition
on the ground of inability to pay debts. Further, provisions of the
winding up under the Companies Act, 2013 (‘2013 Act’) have never
been notified. The 2013 Act does not provide a similar right as
now insolvency proceedings can be initiated only under the IBC on
account of default of either a financial or operational debt.
Section 434 of the 2013 Act provides for transfer of proceedings pending
under the 1956 Act. Section 434, read with subsequent notifications
issued by the central government led to ambiguity as far as initiation
of proceedings under the IBC was concerned. The National Company
Law Tribunal (NCLT) primarily admitted proceedings under the IBC
in cases where no order of winding up had been passed by a High
Court and proceedings were merely pending.
pRaTeeK GaTTani
paRTneR - Cogito Legal
nipUn sinGhVi
head - Cogito Legal
Central Government had notified the Companies (Transfer of Pending
Proceedings) Rules, 2016 (“Transfer Rules”)1 to, inter alia, provide for
transfer of pending winding proceedings to the NCLT. Rule 5 of
the Transfer Rules, provides for transfer of all petitions relating to
winding up of a company on the ground of inability to pay debts
under section 433(e) of the CA 1956, before a High Court. Where
the petition has not been served on the respondent under rule 26 of
the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 transfer to an NCLT bench based
on territorial jurisdiction. The Transfer Rules provide that any party
or parties to the petitions shall be eligible to file fresh applications
under section 7 or 8 or 9 of the Code, as the case may be. The
Transfer Rules also provide that a petition relating to winding up of
a company which is not transferred to the NCLT under the said rule
and which remains in the High Court and where there is another
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 29
E-JOURNAL
853
legAl PoSiTion of winding-uP ViS-à-ViS inSolVenCy & BAnkruPTCy Code
petition under section 433(e) of the CA 1956
for winding up against the same company
pending as on 15 December, 2016, such other
petition shall not be transferred to the NCLT,
even if the petition has not been served on
the respondent. The Committee noted that
winding up proceedings that are covered
by rule 5 of the Transfer Rules evidently
need to be transferred to relevant benches of
the NCLT and dealt with under the Code.
However, ambiguity exists with respect to
applicability of the Code and transferability of
pending winding up proceedings not covered
by rule 5 of the Transfer Rules, and which
are retained.
Present view of NCLAT
2. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
(NCLAT) recently settled the ambiguity, in
an order in Forech India (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweiss
Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [2018] 91 taxmann.
com 163 (NCLAT) dated 23 November, 2017,
and an order in Unigreen Global Pvt. Ltd. v.
Punjab National Bank [2018] 89 taxmann.com
17/145 SCL 272 (NCLAT) dated 1 December,
2017. The NCLAT held that where winding
up proceedings stand initiated by the High
Court, application under the IBC is not
maintainable on account of the bar under
section 11(d) of the IBC. NCLAT concluded
that “winding up” under the 2013 Act is
synonymous with “liquidation” under the IBC.
Thus, a winding up order passed under the
1956 Act has been equated with a liquidation
order under the IBC and, accordingly, the
bar under section 11(d) of the IBC was held
to be applicable in such cases.
The present view of the NCLTs as upheld
by the NCLAT is that mere pendency of
winding up proceedings before the High
Court is not a ground to reject an application
filed by a financial creditor or an operational
creditor under section 7 or section 9 of the
IBC respectively. This view is in consonance
with the object and purpose of the IBC, which
is time-bound resolution/reorganization of
companies undergoing a financial crunch.
854
However, the NCLAT’s finding that “winding
up order” under the 1956 Act is synonymous
with “liquidation order” under the IBC appears
to be a general categorization.
On 12 January 2018, in the matter of Ameya
Laboratories v. Kotak Mahindra Bank [2018] 89
taxmann.com 420/145 SCL 676 (NCL - AT),
the NCLAT held that even in a case where
a stay order for appointment of a liquidator
by a division bench of the High Court was
implemented, the aspect of winding up
proceedings is evident, and, thus, proceedings
under section 10 of the IBC are legally
untenable.
Further, there are several other judgments of
the NCLT including NCLT’s principal bench
judgment on the captioned subject 4. In the
matter of Union Bank v. Era Infra Engg. Ltd.
[2018] 91 taxmann.com 257 (NCLT - New
Delhi). Nowfloats Technologies (P.) Ltd. v.
Getit Infoservices (P.) Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.
com 26/143 SCL 139 (NCLT - New Delhi)
(SB); Alcon Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.
Vasan Health care Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com
393/141 SCL 560 (NCLT - Chennai); Nauvata
Engg. (P.) Ltd. v. Punj Llyods Ltd. [Company
Petition No. (IB)-217(PB)/2017 dated 19 July,
2017] had been referred to a special bench
of NCLT, New Delhi which held that there
is no bar on NCLT to trigger a CIRP on an
application filed under sections 7, 9 and 10
if a winding up petition is pending, unless
an Official Liquidator has been appointed
and a winding up order has been passed.
Further, recently the Hon’ble High court of
Bombay in the case of Jotun India (P.) Ltd.
v. PSL Ltd. [2018] 89 taxmann.com 58/145
SCL 601 (Bom.) held that application for
initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process (CIRP) under Sections 7, 9 and 10
of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016
by Financial Creditor, Operational Creditor
and Corporate Debtor, respectively, can still
subsist even if the winding up proceedings
are pending before the Hon’ble High Court.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 30
E-JOURNAL
legAl PoSiTion of winding-uP ViS-à-ViS inSolVenCy & BAnkruPTCy Code
The Hon’ble High Court has discussed in
detail the arguments put forward by all
the parties to the Application including the
interveners who have filed an application
for intervening. The brief facts of the case
which was before the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay was that against the Respondent/
Applicant, the Petitioner-company had filed a
winding up petition before the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay. During the time when the
petition was pending, the Respondent-Company
(Applicant in present Company Application)
moved to BIFR under SICA regulations. In
December, 2016 when IBC came into effect,
SICA got repealed and a window of 180
days was given to Companies who had their
reference pending before BIFR to make an
application under Section 10 of IBC before
the Adjudicating Authority, i.e., NCLT.
The Respondent-Company, accordingly, filed
an application under Section 10 of the Code
before the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority, i.e.,
NCLT of Ahmedabad. The Petitioner thereafter
filed a Company Application before the Hon’ble
High Court in the Company Petition already
pending to stay the proceedings under IBC
filed by the Respondent. The Hon’ble High
Court vide its order of July, 2016 stayed the
said proceedings. Another Company Application
in the same Company petition was thereafter
filed by the Respondent-Company against the
stay order of the Hon’ble High Court w.r.t
proceedings before NCLT Ahmedabad. The
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay vide its order
dated 5th January, 2018 vacated the stay
order earlier passed w.r.t proceedings under
IBC pending before the Hon’ble Adjudicating
Authority, Ahmedabad and allowed the
Company Application filed by Respondent/
Applicant-Company. Some of the issues which
were discussed and decided in the said
application have been discussed herein after:
(a) Background and Object - Purpose of Insolvency Code While relying on the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI
Bank [2017] 84 taxmann.com 320/143
SCL 625, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that it is apparent from a reading
of the object and purpose for which
the IBC has been enacted is to set-up
Insolvency and Bankruptcy resolution
process, which has to be implemented
in a strict time bound manner, by the
appointment of an IRP and creation
of a creditors Committee. These are
powers which can be exercised only
by NCLT (Adjudicating Authority) and
not by the Company Court. It is for
this reason that pending the Insolvency
Resolution Process a moratorium is
provided under Section 14 of the IBC.
(b) Fundamental Distinction between Companies
Act and IBC - The Hon’ble High Court
held that the fundamental distinction
between the two is that under the
Companies Act winding up would be
a matter for the Court alone to decide.
On the other hand, in IBC there is a
paradigm shift in as much as it displaces
the management of the Company and
an IRP is appointed and the Creditors
Committee is left to decide the fate of
the Company.
(c) Admission of a winding up petition does not
entail stay of NCLT proceedings - While
discussing on the fate of proceedings
pending, if any, under the IBC before
NCLT (Adjudicating Authority), the
Hon’ble High Court observed that
admission of the winding up petition
by the Jurisdictional High Court would
not mean that NCLT either losses jurisdiction or cannot exercise jurisdiction
in case of a petition which is filed by
another creditor. The Hon’ble Court
further observed that the legislature
while enacting IBC was well aware
of an existing law, i.e., the Companies
Act.
In case the intention of the legislature was
that those winding up petitions about which
the jurisdictional high court remain seized of,
would have primacy over NCLT proceedings
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 31
E-JOURNAL
855
legAl PoSiTion of winding-uP ViS-à-ViS inSolVenCy & BAnkruPTCy Code
then the legislature would have clarified so
either in IBC or in the transfer rules notification
dated 07th December, 2016. On the contrary,
as per the Hon’ble High Court, the provisions
of Section 64(2) of the IBC would indicate
that the legislature did not intend that the
Company Court would have the power to
injunct proceedings before NCLT.
Concluding Remarks
3. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court further
held that NCLT is not a court subordinate to
the High Court and, hence, as prohibited by
the provisions of Section 41(b) of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 no injunction can be granted
by the High Court against a Corporate Debtor
from institution of proceedings in NCLT.
Similarly, under the Companies Act, 1956
there is no provision wherein proceedings
under NCLT instituted under IBC can be
injuncted. The Court further observed that
there is an express bar contained in Section
64(2) of IBC which prevents any court, tribunal
or authority from granting any injunction in
respect of any action taken, or to be taken,
in pursuance of any power conferred on
NCLT under IBC. However, mere pendency
of a petition for winding up, where no order
of winding up or order of liquidation has
been passed, cannot be ground to reject the
application under Section of the IBC.
Further, Insolvency Law Committee (‘the
Committee’) has also discussed treatment
of Winding up Proceedings Initiated under
1956 Act/2013 Act vis-a-vis IBC in its report.
The Committee underscored the need to avoid
multiple and possibly conflicting orders in
winding up/liquidation proceedings of the
same corporate debtor whether under the
1956 Act or under IBC. The Committee was
also mindful of the underlying principle with
regards to existence of a moratorium once
winding up/CIRP is initiated whether under
the 1956 Act (section 446)/2013 Act (section
279) or under the IBC (section 14 during CIRP,
section 33 during liquidation). The Committee
noted that under the 1956 Act and 2013 Act,
during the moratorium, legal proceedings
could be initiated or continued with the
leave of the Court/NCLT. Accordingly, for
cases which were not expressly transferred
to the NCLT pursuant to the Transfer Rules,
the Committee felt that the assumption was
that the case was at an advanced stage and,
therefore, the Court hearing the matter was
best suited to grant or deny leave to initiate
insolvency proceedings under the Code.
Finally, based on the available jurisprudence,
the Committee felt that the leave of the High
Court or NCLT, if applicable, under section
446 of the 1956 Act or section 279 of the
2013 Act, must be obtained, for initiating
CIRP under the Code, if any petition for
winding up is pending in any High Court
or NCLT against the corporate debtor. The
Committee agreed that necessary amendments
be made to schedule XI of the Code (which
will result in amendment to the CA 2013) to
ensure that the leave of the High Court or
the NCLT, may be obtained, if applicable,
where such winding-up petition is pending
for initiation of CIRP against such corporate
debtor, under the provisions of the Code.
Corresponding amendments may also be
made to the Transfer Rules.
l ll
1. The Transfer Rules were notified in exercise of the powers conferred under section 434(1) and (2) of the Companies
act, 2013 read with section 239(1) of the ibC.
856
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 32
E-JOURNAL
TDS on transmission & wheeling
charges of power transmission
companies
Introduction
1. The distribution of electricity by power distribution companies, to
end-consumers is preceded by two important intermediate steps –
namely, production of electricity by power generation companies and
its transmission from point of production to the point of distribution
by power transmission companies.
The process of transmission of electricity from the generation point
of the power generation company to the distribution point of the
power distribution company through the transmission system network of the transmission company, in technical parlance is termed
as “Wheeling”.
MayanK MohanKa
Ca
For availing of the benefits of this standard facility, viz., the transmission system network of power transmission companies, for the
purpose of transmission of electricity from the generation point to
the distribution point, the power distribution companies make payment of the Transmission & Wheeling Charges to the transmission
companies. The Transmission & Wheeling Charges are determined
by concerned State Electricity Regulatory Commissions, which are
Regulatory Bodies constituted under the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act.
The issue of applicability or otherwise of TDS on transmission and
wheeling charges, has always been a contentious and litigative issue.
The Revenue Authorities, have, time and again, subjected the said
transmission & wheeling charges, to the deduction of TDS, by the
power distribution companies, either under section 194J, or u/s 194-I
or u/s 194C. Interestingly, this hit and trial approach makes it amply
clear that even Revenue Authorities themselves are not very clear
about the exact nature of the transmission & wheeling charges, so
as to apply a standard section for the purpose of TDS deductibility.
It will be worthwhile to examine the applicability or otherwise of
TDS on Transmission & Wheeling Charges under all the stated three
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 33
E-JOURNAL
857
TdS on TrAnSmiSSion & wheeling ChArgeS of Power TrAnSmiSSion ComPAnieS
sections, viz., sections 194J, 194-I & 194C of
the Income-tax Act as under:
Applicability or otherwise of TDS on
transmission & wheeling charges u/s
194J of the Income Tax Act
2. The Revenue Authorities, very often, consider “Transmission & Wheeling Charges”,
as “Fees for Technical Services”, u/s 194J
of the Act.
Explanation to section 194J defines “technical
services”, as:
(b) “fees for technical services” shall have the
same meaning as in Expln. 2 to clause (vii) of
sub-section (1) of section 9;”
Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act
provides that, For the purposes of this clause,
“fees for technical services” means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration)
for the rendering of any managerial, technical or
consultancy services (including the provision of
services of technical or other personnel) but does
not include consideration for any construction,
assembly, mining or like project undertaken by
the recipient or consideration which would be
income of the recipient chargeable under the
head “Salaries.”
However, there is a need to appreciate &
recognize the distinction between “Technical
Services” & “Technology Driven Services”.
Technical Service referred to in the Explanation
2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act contemplates
rendering of a technical service to the payer
of the fees & not technology driven services.
Installation & operation of sophisticated
equipments with a view to earn income by
allowing the users to avail of the benefits
of such equipments does not tantamount to
rendering of “Technical Services” within the
meaning of the Explanation 2 to section 9(1)
(vii) of the Act.
Mere collection of a fee for making available a
standard facility provided to all those willing
858
to pay for it does not amount to the fees
having been received for technical services.
Where a person has developed a technical
system consisting of sophisticated instruments
and the technical ability and knowledge to
operate and maintain the system, it does not
result in providing any technical service to
others. Rendering of services by using some
sophisticated equipments/technical systems
is different from charging fees for rendering
technical services.
The power distribution companies make payment of transmission & wheeling charges to
the transmission companies, in consideration
of availing of the benefits of the standard
technical facility, viz., the Transmission System Network of the transmission companies,
for the purpose of transmission of electricity
from the generation point to the distribution
point and, as such, by merely making available the benefits of its sophisticated Transmission System Network to the distribution
company, the transmission company does
not render any “Technical Services” within
the meaning of the Explanation 2 to section
9(1)(vii) of the Act. Also, the benefits of the
said standard facility, viz., the transmission
system network of “RVPN” may be availed
by any distribution company within the
framework & guidelines of prescribed open
access transmission norms.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of
“CIT v. Bharati Cellular Ltd. [2008] 175 Taxman
573/[2009] 319 ITR 139”, has categorically
held that technical services which are relevant for the purpose of section 194J would
be those technical services which involve
human interface/element. In other words,
the expression ‘technical service’ could have
reference to only technical service rendered
by a human and that it would not include
my service provided by machines or robots.
The said judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court, has been affirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 193 Taxman 97 (SC).
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 34
E-JOURNAL
TdS on TrAnSmiSSion & wheeling ChArgeS of Power TrAnSmiSSion ComPAnieS
Without prejudice to above analysis, this
aspect can be looked at from another perspective also.
The respective State Governments, confer the
status of “State Transmission Utility “(STU) on
the concerned power transmission companies.
Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates the STU to undertake various functions
wherein sub-section (2) of section 39 provides
as under;
“(2) The functions of the STU shall be—
(a) to undertake transmission of electricity
through intra-State transmission system;
(b) to discharge all functions of planning
and co-ordination relating to intra-State
transmission system with—
(i) Central transmission utility;
(ii) State Governments;
(iii) Generating companies;
(iv) Regional power committees;
(v) Authority;
(vi) Licensees;
(vii) any other person notified by the State
Government in this behalf;
thereon, as may be specified by the
State Commission” :
Further, Section 34 provides that every
transmission licensee shall comply with such
technical standards of operation and maintenance of transmission lines, in accordance
with grid standards as may be specified by
authority. These grid standards are described
in Indian electricity code prescribed by Central
Electricity Regulatory Commission.
From the aforestated provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, it becomes clear that all the
entities involved in generation, transmission
and distribution of electricity are discharging their respective statutory functions and
are complying with the directions of State
Load Dispatch Centre and the Regulatory
Commission for achieving the economy and
efficiency in the operation of power system
and, therefore, question of any entity rendering any technical service to another does
not arise.
The aforesaid views also get fortified by the
decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
the case of CIT v. Delhi Transco Ltd. [2015] 62
taxmann.com 166/234 Taxman 779, wherein
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide para Nos.
34 & 35, has held as under:-
(c) to ensure development of an efficient,
co-ordinated and economical system of
intra-State transmission lines for smooth
flow of electricity from a generating
station to the load centers;
(d) to provide non-discriminatory open
access to its transmission system for
use by—
(i) any licensee or generating company
on payment of the transmission
charges; or
(ii) any consumer as and when such
open access is provided by the State
Commission under sub-section (2)
of section 42, on payment of the
transmission charges and a surcharge
“34. To reiterate, by virtue of the BPTA
agreement between DTL and PGCIL there is
transportation of the electricity from PGCIL
to DTL, through the equipment and network
required statutorily to be maintained by
PGCIL through its technical personnel using
technical expertise. This, however, does not
result in PGCIL providing technical services
to DTL. Therefore the wheeling charges paid
by DTL and PGCIL for such transportation
of electricity cannot be characterized as fee
for technical service.
35. The ultimate conclusion of the ITAT is,
therefore, not erroneous. Accordingly, the
question framed by the Court is answered
in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue
and in favour of the Assessee. Since the
same question is involved in all the AYs.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 35
E-JOURNAL
859
TdS on TrAnSmiSSion & wheeling ChArgeS of Power TrAnSmiSSion ComPAnieS
in question, all these appeals are dismissed
affirming the impugned order of the ITAT,
but in the circumstances with no order as
to costs.”
Against the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Transco
Ltd. (supra), the Revenue Authorities, went in
Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in SLP(C) No. 853/2016 in the case
of CIT (TDS) v. Delhi Transco Limited, which
has since been dismissed by the Apex Court
vide its order dated 22/01/2016 by holding
as under:“We find no reason to entertain this Special
Leave Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.”
Therefore, the present legal position, in relation
to the applicability of TDS on Transmission
& Wheeling Charges, u/s 194J of the Act,
stands settled and concluded by the aforestated
dismissal of Special Leave Petition (SLP), of
Revenue Authorities, by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in SLP(C) No. 853/2016 in the case
of CIT (TDS) v. Delhi Transco Ltd. [2016] 69
taxmann.com 92/239 Taxman 263, and, as
such, the transmission & wheeling charges,
can’t be considered as “Fees for Technical
Services” so as to attract TDS applicability
u/s 194J of the Act.
Applicability or otherwise of TDS on
transmission & wheeling charges u/s
194-I of the Income Tax Act
3. The meaning of Rent as specifically provided by the Explanation to section 194-I of
the Act is as follows:
Explanation to Section 194-I : For the purposes
of this section,“(i) “rent” means any payment , by whatever
name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy
or any other agreement or arrangement for
the use of (either separately or together) any,(a) land; or
(b) building (including factory building);
or
860
(c) land appurtenant to a building (including
factory building); or
(d) machinery; or
(e) plant; or
(f) equipment; or
(g) furniture; or
(h) fittings,
whether or not any or all of the above are
owned by the payee.”
It is clearly evident that the key words in
this definition are “for the use of”. In other
words, to consider any payment as rent u/s
194-I, it must be towards the use of any
particular asset.
The Revenue Authorities contend that the
transmission & wheeling charges paid by
distribution companies to transmission companies are consideration towards the use of
plant & machinery, i.e., transmission system
network of the transmission companies and,
as such, are liable for deduction of TDS u/s
194-I of the Act.
However, this contention of the Revenue Authorities ignores one basic fact that in order
to use any plant & machinery or equipment,
so as to come under the purview of TDS
applicability u/s 194-I of the Act, one has
to have the physical possession or custody
of the same. In other words one can’t use
anything which one does not possess.
The transmission system networks apart from
being owned, managed, controlled & operated
by the transmission companies, are always
in the physical custody and possession of
transmission companies only and not the
distribution companies. Thus, the availment of
the benefits of a standard facility, i.e., transmission system network of the transmission
companies, by the distribution companies,
can’t be considered as “use” of the same by
the distribution companies, so as to attract
TDS liability u/s 194-I of the Act.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 36
E-JOURNAL
TdS on TrAnSmiSSion & wheeling ChArgeS of Power TrAnSmiSSion ComPAnieS
Reliance can be placed on the judgment
of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the
case of “CIT v. Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.
com 339/232 Taxman 373 (Bom.), wherein the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court, has held that,
“36.The argument of the revenue that payments
to MSETCL amounts to rent cannot be accepted.
According to the Black’s Law Dictionary,
‘Rent’ is defined as consideration paid for
periodical use or occupancy of property.
Various types of rent are contemplated such
as ceiling rent, crop rent, ground rent, etc.
Even taking the widest possible definition of
rent, in our view the WT charges cannot
be considered as rent. It is well settled that
the Court may in its discretion construe the
legislative provisions so as giving effect to
the intended use and applying the test of
contextual interpretation. We are of the view
that the expression ‘rent’ used in Section
194-I does not apply to WT charges or any
other part thereof.
37. In our view, the expression rent would
also entail an element of possession. In
each of the instances contemplated by the
Explanation to Section 194-I, we see in
them an element of possession, be it land,
building (including factory building), land
appertaining to a building, plant, equipment,
furniture or fittings. The person using it
has some degree of possessory control, at
least momentarily, although it cannot entrust
the user title to the subject matter of the
charge. Even the mere right to “use” is
vested with an element of possessory control
over the subject matter. In the present case,
WT charges are bereft of such possessory
control and hence in our view, completely
outside the purview of the Explanation to
Section 194-I.”
Similar reliance can be placed upon the
Judgment of the Honourable Authority For
Advance Ruling in the case of “Dell International Services India (P.) Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR
37/172 Taxman 418.
The relevant extracts of the key observations
& findings of the Hon’ble Authority in this
regard are as follows:
“12.8. The word ‘use’ in relation to equipment
occurring in (iv.a) is not to be understood
in the broad sense of availing of the benefit
of an equipment. The context and collocation
of the two expressions ‘use’ and ‘right to
use’ followed by the words “equipment”
suggests that there must be some positive
act of utilization, application or employment
of equipment for the desired purpose.
If an advantage is taken from sophisticated
equipment installed and provided by another,
it is difficult to say that the recipient/customer
uses the equipment as such. The customer
merely makes use of the facility, though he
does not himself use the equipment.”
The
case
ITO
SOT
held
Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench, in the
of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v.
(TDS) [2012] 18 taxmann.com 150/50
33/143 TTJ 151, has also categorically
that,
“17. ….When control of the asset (transmission
lines in the present case) always remains
with the PGCIL, any payment made to
the PGCIL for transmission of power on
the transmission lines and infrastructure
owned controlled and in physical possession
of PGCIL cant be said to have been made
for the use of these transmission lines or
other related infrastructure.
Viewed in this perspective, Section 194-I
has no application so far as the impugned
payments for transmission of electricity is
concerned.”
Therefore, in view of aforesaid legal and
factual propositions, transmission & wheeling charges, paid by the power distribution
companies, for availing of the benefits of
transmission system networks of power
transmission companies, can’t be considered
as rent for use of such network, so as to
attract TDS applicability u/s 194-I of the Act.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 37
E-JOURNAL
861
TdS on TrAnSmiSSion & wheeling ChArgeS of Power TrAnSmiSSion ComPAnieS
wheeling charges are not covered in this
amendment. Accordingly it could not be
said that transmission charges or wheeling
charges require deduction of tax at source
u/s.194C of the Act.”
Applicability or otherwise of TDS on
transmission & wheeling charges u/s
194C of the Income Tax Act
4. The Revenue Authorities contend that if
transmission & wheeling charges can’t be
considered as either fees for technical services u/s 194J or rent u/s 194-I of the Act,
then alternatively, they may be considered
as “consideration towards any work carried” u/s 194C of the Act, within the limb
of “consideration towards carriage of goods or
passengers by any mode of transport other than
by Railways.”
Conclusion
5. For the sake of brevity, the above stated
comprehensive analysis may be summed up
as under:
However, it needs to be appreciated that
transmission of electricity or wheeling via
the transmission system network of a power
transmission company is a process and it can’t
be considered as carriage of goods simpliciter.
Also, treating the transmission system network
of the transmission companies, as mode of
transportation, will be highly presumptuous.
The Hon’ble Cuttack ITAT, in the case of
GRIDCO Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 49 SOT
363/[2011] 15 taxmann.com 354 had observed
as under:
“Further the scope of Section 194C was
extended by inserting Explanation III by
including the specific items within its provision.
Accordingly by inserting Explanation III to
section 194C w.e.f. 1.7.1995, the provisions
relating to deduction of tax at source has
been enlarged by bringing some of the service
contracts within the provisions of Section
194C. In a way by inserting Explanation
III the word work in Section 194C has been
extended so as to include four types of service
contracts within the purview of section 194C.
Therefore, Section 194C now covers only four
types of services beyond what was original
enacted i.e., advertising, broadcasting and
telecasting including production of programs
for such broadcasting or telecasting, carriage
of goods and passengers by any mode
of transport other than by railways, and
catering. Undisputedly the transmission and
862
(i) Transmission & Wheeling Charges can’t
be considered as Fees for Technical
Services u/s 194J of the Income-tax
Act as installation & operation of sophisticated equipments with a view to
earn income by allowing the users to
avail of the benefits of such equipments
does not tantamount to rendering of
“Technical Services” within the meaning
of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of
the Act. Rendering of services by using
some sophisticated equipments/technical
systems is different from charging fees
for rendering technical services.
The present legal position, in relation
to the applicability of TDS on Transmission & Wheeling Charges, u/s
194J of the Act, stands settled and
concluded by the dismissal of Special
Leave Petition (SLP), of Revenue Authorities, by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in SLP(C) No. 853/2016 in the case
of Delhi Transco Ltd. case (supra), and
as such the transmission & wheeling
charges, can’t be considered as “Fees
for Technical Services” so as to attract
TDS applicability u/s 194J of the Act.
(ii) Transmission & Wheeling Charges can’t
be considered as Rent u/s 194-I of the
Income-tax Act, as if an advantage is
taken from sophisticated equipment
installed and provided by another, it
can’t be construed that the recipient/
customer uses the equipment as such.
The customer merely makes use of the
facility though he does not himself
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 38
E-JOURNAL
TdS on TrAnSmiSSion & wheeling ChArgeS of Power TrAnSmiSSion ComPAnieS
use the equipment. The transmission
system networks are owned, controlled,
operated and physically possessed by
transmission companies, and, as such,
the availment of benefits of the standard
facility, viz., transmission system network
by power distribution companies can’t
be construed as use of such facility so
as to attract TDS liability u/s 194-I of
the Act. There are several judgments
of ITAT & High Courts (as mentioned
supra), in this regards, so present legal
position is also more or less settled in
this regards.
(iii) Applicability or Otherwise of TDS on
Transmission & Wheeling Charges u/s
194C of the Act: The transmission of
electricity via the transmission system
network of transmission companies,
being a systematic process, ought not
to be considered as merely carriage of
goods simplicitor and the transmission
system network, ought not to be treated
as mode of transport, so as to attract
TDS liability u/s 194C of the Act.
If Transmission of Electricity is to be considered as “Work in relation to Carriage of
Goods” so as to warrant deduction of TDS
under section 194C of the Act, then on the
same footing, Distribution of Electricity may
also have to be considered as “work” so as
to require deduction of TDS u/s 194C, from
our electricity bills. But this cannot be so.
However, at present there are a very few
legal precedents in this regard.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 39
E-JOURNAL
l ll
863
Your Queries on IND-AS
Queries Addressed
1. Classification Of MAT Credit Entitlement In IND-AS Balance
Sheet
2. Cash Flow Classification Of Acquisition Of Non-Controlling
Interest In Subsidiaries
3. Recognition Of Interest Income On Debt Instruments Investments
4. Accounting Policy For Financial Guarantees Issued
5. Presentation Of Trade Receivables Bills Discounted
Classification of MAT Credit Entitlement in IND-AS Balance
Sheet
1. Our company is a Phase 2 IND-AS entity. At the date of
transition we have a brought forward “MAT Credit Entitlement”
asset that was presented as a separate line item in our previous
GAAP Balance sheet.
How should the same be presented in the IND-AS balance sheet?
•
IND-AS defines deferred tax assets so as to include the amounts of
income-taxes recoverable in future periods in respect of the carry
forward of unused tax credits.
The balances in “MAT Credit Entitlement” account both at the date
of transition and at subsequent reporting dates need to be presented
as “Deferred Tax Assets” in the balance sheet prepared under the
Indian Accounting Standards (IND-AS) framework.
Per IND-AS 12, deferred tax assets are the amounts of income-taxes
recoverable in future periods in respect of:
u
864
Deductible temporary differences,
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 40
E-JOURNAL
VinayaK pai V.
Ca, CMa
your QuerieS on ind-AS
u
The carry forward of unused tax losses,
and
the same way as other transactions with
owners, viz., Financing Activities.
u
The carry forward of unused tax credits.
The line item “Payment for acquisition of
Non-Controlling Interest in Subsidiary” needs
to be classified as “Cash Flows from Financing
Activities” in the IND-AS Group Statement
of Cash Flows.
A deferred tax asset is required to be recognized
for the carry forward of unused tax credits
to the extent that it is probable that future
taxable profit will be available against which
the unused tax credits can be utilized.
You would also need to bear in mind the
flow through effect of this on tax reconciliation
disclosures.
Cash flow classification of acquisition of
non-controlling interest in subsidiaries
2. Our company has increased its degree of
control over one of its Asian subsidiaries
during the year ended March 31, 2018.
The increase in the controlling stake has
been totally discharged by way of cash
consideration.
We need your inputs on how this cash
outflow needs to be classified in the INDAS cash flow statement (Group Cash Flow
Statement)? Can the same be treated as an
investing cash flow as we have stepped up
the investment in the subsidiary?
•
The said cash flow cannot be classified as
investing cash flows as IND-AS permits only
the cash flows arising from obtaining or
losing control of subsidiaries to be presented
separately and classified as investing activities.
Indian Accounting Standards (IND-AS) treat
the increase in the stake in the subsidiary by
way of acquisition of non-controlling interest
in a subsidiary as a transaction with owners.
Per IND-AS changes in ownership interests
in a subsidiary that do not result in a loss
of control, such as the subsequent purchase
or sale by a parent of a subsidiary’s equity
instruments are accounted for as equity
transactions and, accordingly, the resulting
cash flows are required to be classified in
Recognition of interest income on debt
instrument investments
3. We have a portfolio of investment in debt
instruments in our balance sheet. Kindly
let us know the interest income accounting
requirements for such investments under
IND-AS.
•
The provisions of IND-AS109 on financial
instruments govern the classification of
investments in debt portfolio in balance sheets.
The related interest income on debt instruments
that is measured either at amortized cost or
at fair value through other comprehensive
income (FVTOCI) is required to be recognized
using the effective interest rate applying the
effective interest method.
The effective interest method is a method
that is used in calculation of the amortized
cost of a financial asset or a financial liability
and in the allocation and recognition of the
interest revenue or interest expense in profit
or loss over the relevant period.
The Effective Interest Rate is the rate that
exactly discounts the estimated future cash
receipts over the expected life of the financial
asset to its gross carrying amount at initial
recognition.
The reporting entity is required to take into
consideration the estimates of expected cash
flows by considering all the contractual terms
of the debt instruments including prepayment,
call and similar options but not considering
expected credit losses.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 41
E-JOURNAL
865
your QuerieS on ind-AS
Accounting policy for financial
guarantees issued
Presentation of trade receivable bills
discounted
4. Our company has issued financial guarantees
to third parties that is a general feature
of our business. We require inputs on
developing a model accounting policy for
such financial guarantees issued.
5. As part of our company’s financing
arrangements, we regularly enter into bill
discounting arrangements with financial
institutions for our in-scope trade receivables.
•
IND-AS defines a financial guarantee contract
as a contract that requires the issuer to
make specified payments to reimburse the
holder for a loss it incurs because a specified
debtor fails to make payment when due in
accordance with the original or modified
terms of a debt instrument.
A model accounting policy for financial
guarantees issued for the IND-AS financial
statements is provided herein below.
u
u
u
866
Financial guarantee contracts that are
issued by the company are those contracts that require the company to make
a payment to reimburse the holder for
a loss it incurs because the specified
debtor fails to make a payment when
due in accordance with the terms of
the instrument.
Financial guarantee contracts are recognized initially as a liability at fair
value through profit or loss, adjusted
for the transaction costs that are directly attributable to the issuance of
the guarantee.
Kindly let us know the IND-AS accounting
guidance for such arrangements.
•
The contractual provisions of the bill discounting
arrangements with the financial institutions
need to be analyzed. The company transfers
the relevant trade receivables to the financial
institution in exchange for cash but it is
important to consider whether company has
retained any risks in the transferred assets.
For instance, the company might retain late
payment risk and credit risk. In such instances,
the company needs to continue to recognize
the transferred trade receivables in the balance
sheet and the amount of cash received needs
to be accounted as unsecured borrowings.
In the balance sheet the trade receivables
need to be presented separately as receivables
subject to bill discounting and the associated
liability needs to be classified and presented
as a financial liability.
Subsequently, the liability is measured
at the higher of the amount of loss
allowance determined as per the impairment requirements of IND-AS 109 and
the amount recognized less cumulative
amortization.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 42
E-JOURNAL
l ll
Your Queries
Goods and Services Tax
(Contributed by CA Mohammad Salim)
Issue of self-invoice and payment voucher
under Reverse charge
Whether payment voucher and self-invoice
are required to be issued by recipient in
all cases where payment is required to be
made on reverse charge mechanism?
A
s per Section 31(3)(f) of the CGST Act,
2017 a registered person who is liable
to pay tax on notified goods or services
under Section 9(3) of the CGST Act or on
supplies received from unregistered person
as per Section 9(4) of the CGST Act shall
issue an invoice (self-invoice) in respect of
goods or services or both received by him
from an unregistered supplier. Thus, only
in cases where supplies are received from
unregistered suppliers the issue of selfinvoice would arise. In this regard it is also
important to note that vide Notification No.
38/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 13-10-2017
exemption was granted from payment of
tax under section 9(4) till 31-3-2018 which
has been further extended to 30-6-2018 vide
Notification No. 10/2018-Central Tax (Rate),
dated 23-3-2018. In view of above exemption
in case of supplies received from unregistered
person no self-invoice would be required
to be issued except in cases where the
notified goods or services under Section 9(3)
are being received by prescribed recipients
from unregistered suppliers. Further, in case
notified goods or services are received from
registered suppliers then self-invoice is not
required despite payment under reverse
charge mechanism.
Further, as per Sections 31(3)(f) of the CGST
Act, 2017 a registered person who is liable
to pay tax on notified goods or services
under Section 9(3) or on supplies received
from unregistered person as per Section 9(4)
shall issue a payment voucher at the time of
making payment to the supplier. As stated
earlier that payment of tax under reverse
charge as per Section 9(4) has been deferred
till 30-6-2018, thus in such cases there will
also be no requirement to issue payment
voucher. However, payment voucher would
be required to be issued in cases where payment of tax is required to be made under
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 43
E-JOURNAL
867
your QuerieS
reverse charge basis on notified goods or
services as per Section 9(3).
Letter of Undertaking (LUT) by exporters
What documents are required to be submitted
physically for grant of approval of LUT
for export of goods or services without
payment of tax? What period has been
prescribed for acceptance of LUT?
A
s per Circular No. 40/14/2018-GST
dated 6-4-2018 the registered person
(exporters) shall fill up and submit the
letter of undertaking (LUT) in FORM GST
RFD-11 on the common portal. Further, no
document needs to be physically submitted
to the jurisdictional office for acceptance of
LUT. It shall be deemed to be accepted as
soon as an acknowledgement for the same,
bearing the Application Reference Number
(ARN), is generated online. However, if it is
discovered that an exporter whose LUT has
been so accepted, was ineligible to furnish
an LUT in place of bond as per Notification
No. 37/2017-Central Tax, then the exporter’s
LUT will be liable for rejection. In case of
rejection, the LUT shall be deemed to have
been rejected ab initio.
Direct supply of goods from job-workers
place
I am a registered person located in Delhi
and have sent goods to a job worker in
Haryana and subsequently I supplied these
goods directly from job workers place to
a recipient located in Delhi. Whether such
supply would be inter-State or intra-State?
S
ection 143 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides
that the principal may supply from the place
of business/premises of a job worker, inputs
after completion of job work or otherwise or
capital goods (other than moulds and dies,
jigs and fixtures or tools) within one year
or three years, respectively, of their being
sent out, on payment of tax within India, or
with or without payment of tax for exports,
868
as the case may be. This facility is available
to the principal only if he declares the job
worker’s place of business/premises as his
additional place of business or if the job
worker is registered.
Since in such cases the supply is being made
by the principal, it is clarified vide Circular
No. 38/12/2018, dated 26-3-2018 that the
time, value and place of supply would have
to be determined in the hands of the principal, irrespective of the location of the job
worker’s place of business/premises. Further,
the invoice would have to be issued by the
principal. It has also been clarified vide above
Circular that in case of exports directly from
the job worker’s place of business/premises,
the LUT or bond, as the case may be, shall
be executed by the principal.
In view of above position, you are required
to issue the invoice being supplier (principal)
in respect of supply from the job worker’s
place of business/premises. Further, as you
as well as the recipient of goods are located
in Delhi the said transaction will be an intra-State supply and CGST and SGST would
be applicable.
Availing of Input Tax Credit of taxes
charged in other State
Can SGST or CGST paid in one State be
utilised for payment of SGST or CGST or
IGST of another State?
T
he CGST and SGST to the credit of a
State can be utilised for payment of their
respective CGST/SGST or IGST liabilities
within that State and that too for same
GSTIN only, as under GST law claim of
ITC is registration and State specific. Every
registration is treated as a distinct person.
Further, a registered person in one State
cannot be allowed to set-off ITC of other
State as it will reduce revenue of the other
State. To illustrate in case an employee of a
Company registered in Delhi visits Mumbai
for some official assignment and stays in
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 44
E-JOURNAL
your QuerieS
Hotel, such Hotel will charge CGST and
SGST on hotel charges, as place of supply
in cases of services related to immoveable
property is the location of such immoveable
property. Accordingly, in such cases despite
the fact that the expense has been incurred
for business purposes, input tax credit of
CGST and SGST charged in Maharashtra
cannot be adjusted against CGST and SGST/
IGST liability in Delhi.
A
s per Rule 3(h)(i) of the IGST Rules, 2017
in such cases the amount attributable to the
value of advertisement services disseminated in
a State or Union Territory shall be calculated on
the basis of the telecommunication subscribers
in each State or Union territory. In such
cases separate invoices will have to be issued
State-wise or Union territory-wise indicating
the value pertaining to that State.
l ll
Place of Supply of advertisement services
How would the place of supply be determined
in case of advertisement through sms in
various States?
Income Tax
(Contributed by CA V.K. Subramani)
stock as on 01.04.2017 will get enhanced to
the same extent.
Consequences of undervalued stock and
unaccounted stock
However, when the difference in stock value as per stock register and your financial
statement used for the purpose of income-tax
show difference, the tax officers will tax the
amount first as income of the assessment year
2017-18. This, however, would get subsumed
in the assessment year 2018-19 because of
the adjustment in opening stock value, i.e.,
as on 01.04.2017.
Our firm is engaged in manufacturing
activity. A survey under section 133A
was conducted in March, 2018 and the
stock register of the financial year 201617 was verified. It was found that there
was difference in stock value of Rs. 15
lakhs by way of under-valuation as at
31st, March 2017. In the statement it was
recorded as unaccounted stock, whereas
our tax counsel suggested to record the
same as undervalued stock. What do the
terms “undervalued stock” or “unaccounted
stock” signify in income tax assessment?
A
t the outset, it may be noted that the
under valuation of closing stock, i.e., stock
as on 31.03.2017 when adjusted to correct
figure, it will be tax neutral as the opening
The term ‘undervalued stock’ means that
the difference of Rs. 15 lakhs added to
your income is business income and will
be chargeable to tax at the regular rate of
30.9%. Where the working partner’s salary
was partly disallowed because of the limits
prescribed by section 40(b) this increase in
income would get partly absorbed in working
partner salary.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 45
E-JOURNAL
869
your QuerieS
On the other hand, if the inventory is taken
as ‘unaccounted stock’ it could be subjected
to tax under section 115BBE at 60% plus
surcharge @ 25% thereon besides education
cess. The effective rate would be 77.25%.
This is independent of the penalty imposable
under section 271AAC. Perhaps your tax
counsel might have considered these aspects
in advising you to admit the difference as
difference in valuation of stock instead of
terming it as ‘unaccounted stock’.
Revision under section 264 when appeal
is pending for some other assessment
year for the same issue.
Our company preferred an appeal against
the assessment made under section 143(3)
for the assessment years 2013-14 and 201415. For the very same issue, there is an
addition for the assessment year 2015-16
as well. We filed revision under section
264 for the assessment year 2015-16 instead
of filing an appeal. The CIT is hesitant
to adjudicate revision under section 264
as the identical issue is pending before
appellate authorities. Is there any legal
embargo in CIT admitting and making
revision under section 264 for the assessment
year 2015-16?
W
hen you have preferred revision under
section 264 it means that you are
waiving of the right of appeal and regardless
of the outcome of revision under section
264 whether in your favour or not, you will
accept the verdict of the CIT. Even where
you have preferred an appeal on some of
the issues dealt with in the assessment order
and preferred revision under section 264 in
respect of some other issues (not covered
in appeal) then revision under section 264
is not possible.
In your case the identical issue relating to
preceding assessment years is pending before
the appellate authorities. There is no legal bar
in preferring an appeal for one assessment
870
year and preferring a revision for some other assessment year, even though the subject
matter may be one and the same.
Hence, there is no reason for CIT to hesitate
in passing an order under section 264, even
though the identical issue is pending in appeal for the earlier or later assessment year.
The CIT must consider the revision preferred
under section 264 objectively and his opinion
will not be binding or influencing the appellate authorities and in this background, he
must give disposal for the revision petition.
Eligibility for deduction under section
80-IA for successor
My client was engaged in generation
and distribution of power. He availed of
deduction under section 80-IA in respect of
such income. He died in August, 2017 and
his son succeeded the business as per ‘will’
executed by the deceased. His son wants
to know whether he can claim deduction
under section 80-IA for the balance number
of assessment years. Decide.
S
ection 80-IA(2) provides the option to
the taxpayer to claim deduction for any
10 consecutive assessment years out of 15
years beginning from the year in which the
undertaking generates power or commences
transmission or distribution of power.
In this case the father claimed deduction
under section 80-IA and after some years
his son succeeded the business in accordance
with the ‘Will’ of father. The son wants to
claim deduction in respect of the income from
such undertaking for the balance number of
assessment years. For example, if the father
has claimed deduction for 6 years now the
son as successor wants to claim deduction
for the balance 4 assessment years.
The accent of section 80-IA is with reference
to profits and gains derived from the undertaking by the assessee which forms part of his
gross total income. Therefore, the successor
who admits the income from such activity is
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 46
E-JOURNAL
your QuerieS
eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IA
for the balance assessment years. Section 80IA(12) explicitly allows the successor company
in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger to
claim the deduction but does not deal with
other kinds of succession. Nevertheless, there
is no voluntary action on the part of the
taxpayers to shift the income and avail of
tax benefit. Hence, the benefit of deduction
must be allowed in your case. You can refer
to Kanan Devan Hills Plantations Co (P) Ltd.
v. Asstt. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 43 (Ker.).
Power of CIT (Appeals) for making a
new addition.
I filed an appeal against the order passed
by AO under section 143(3) of the Act.
During the course of hearing, it was found
that the additional depreciation on office
appliances was allowed inadvertently
by the AO. The CIT (Appeals) wants to
disallow additional depreciation but it is
beyond the scope of my appeal. Is the CIT
(Appeals) empowered to consider issues
not contested in appeal by the taxpayer?
S
ection 32(1)(iia) provides for additional
depreciation @ 20% of the actual cost
of machinery or plant besides the regular/
normal depreciation. It is not applicable
for office appliances. The Assessing Officer
has not disallowed the additional claim of
depreciation for office appliances while doing
the assessment under section 143(3).
Section 251 deals with power of the CIT
(Appeals). He has the power to confirm,
reduce, enhance or annul the assessment of
the Assessing Officer. The powers of the CIT
(Appeals) are co-terminus with that of the
Assessing Officer. He can do what the ITO
can do. He can also direct the Assessing Officer to do what he has failed to do earlier.
Refer to CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964)
53 ITR 225 (SC) and CIT v. K.S. Dattatreya
(2011) 9 taxmann.com 106 (Kar.). Hence, the
CIT (Appeals) is empowered to consider the
issues which come to his notice during the
course of hearing. However, he cannot make
enquiries on issues which are not connected
to matters preferred in appeal. CIT v. Shapoorji
Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC).
l ll
Corporate Laws
Cash flows from interest & dividends to
be disclosed separately
Is there any requirement to separately
disclose cash flows from interest and
dividends in cash flow statement?
C
ash flows from interest and dividends
shall be disclosed separately in the cash
flow statement. An entity should disclose cash
flows arising from interest and dividends
paid as cash flows from financing activities
while interest and dividends received should
be classified as cash flows from investing
activities. But if the entity is a financial
institution, then interest paid and interest &
dividends received is classified as cash flows
arising from operating activities.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 47
E-JOURNAL
871
your QuerieS
Classification of cash flows used in
income tax
Disclosure of non-cash investing and
financing transactions
In what situation is ‘cash flows used in
income tax’ required to be classified as
cash flows arising from investing/financing
activities?
C
ash flows arising from income tax shall
be presented under cash flows from
operating activities. However, when it is
practicable to identify the tax cash flow with
an individual transaction that gives rise to
cash flows that are classified as investing
or financing activities, the tax cash flow is
required to be classified as cash flows from
investing or financing activities, as the case
may be.
872
Some investing and financing transaction
does not involve transfer of cash and
cash equivalent, like conversion of debt
into equity. Whether such transactions
are required to be disclosed in the cash
flow statement?
N
o. Investing and financing transactions
that do not require the use of cash
and cash equivalents shall not be disclosed
in the cash flow statement. However, such
transactions are required to be disclosed
elsewhere in the financial statements.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 48
E-JOURNAL
l ll
Weekly Review
A Weekly Guide to
Statutory Changes & Landmark Rulings
Goods and Services Tax
CASE LAWS
No ST on fees received by Mumbai
police for performing statutory duties
Mumbai Police v. CST [2018] 92 taxmann.
com 92 (Mum. - CESTAT)
The assessees, Mumbai Police, are providing
security services to banks, individuals, security
for cricket matches, Mumbai Port Trust and for
other functions. It contended that the police
was deployed for the purpose of maintaining
law and order. Thus, such service was not
liable to service tax.
The department issued a show cause notice
on the assessees demanding service tax
along with interest and penalty on the
charges received for providing security on
the ground that such activity was undertaken
for a consideration which was not a statutory
fee. Thus, such service was liable to service
tax under the category of “Security Agency
Services”. The assessee filed an appeal in
the Tribunal against the same.
The Tribunal held that the police department,
which was an agency of the State Govt.,
could not be considered as “person” engaged
in the business of running security services.
Therefore, the activity undertaken by the
police was not covered under the definition
of Security Agency service. Hence, there could
be no levy of service tax on such activities
carried out by the police department because
these were in nature of statutory duties.
Creating infrastructure for providing
parking facility during CWG not covered under ‘Works Contract Service’
Punj Lloyd Ltd. v. CST [2018] 92 taxmann.
com 35 (New Delhi - CESTAT)
The assessee entered into an agreement
with MCD for covering certain area for
providing parking facility during Commonwealth
Games-2010. It contended that such service
was not taxable under ‘works contract service’.
The department held that the construction
activity undertaken by the assessee was
covered under the category of ‘works contract
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 49
E-JOURNAL
873
weekly reView
service’. The assessee filed an appeal in the
Tribunal against the same.
The Tribunal held that the structure created
for such sport event could not be considered
as commercial or industrial venture. Hence,
the said activity undertaken by assessee
could not fall under the category of ‘works
contract service’. Thus, the impugned order
was not legally sustainable.
Goods confiscated by AA was to be
released on payment of differential
duty at rate of 5% IGST: HC
Priyanka Enterprises v. Jt. CC [2018] 92
taxmann.com 53 (Mad.)
The department confiscated the imported
goods of the assessee. The assessee filed a
writ petition in the High Court seeking release
of imported goods on the ground that the
imported goods had a shell life of only 6
months and further delay would render the
product useless.
The High Court directed the assessee to
pay the differential duty by calculating the
IGST at the rate of 5%. On remittance of
the differential duties, the department would
provisionally release the goods within a
period of 7 days.
Photocopies of invoices aren’t valid
document for availing Cenvat Credit:
CESTAT
Terex India (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2018] 92 taxmann.
com 52 (Chennai - CESTAT)
The assessee was engaged in the manufacture
of crushing machines and screening machines.
It availed of Cenvat credit on certain input
services on the basis of photocopies of invoices.
It submitted that the original invoices were
misplaced. The department denied the Cenvat
credit on such input services. The assessee
filed an appeal in the Tribunal against the
same.
874
The Tribunal held that photocopies were
not valid documents for availing of credit.
Further, if such practice of availing of credit
on the basis of photocopies of invoices was
allowed, then it would lead to false claims
of credit made by assessees. Therefore, the
claim of assessee was disallowed.
‘Network Switches’ are classifiable
as ‘other units of automatic data
processing machines’ under excise
law
D-Link (India) Ltd. v. CCE [2018] 92 taxmann.
com 47 (Mum. - CESTAT)
The assessee contended that ‘Network Switches’
were classifiable under Heading No. 8471 80
as they were only useable in the local area
network. The department held that ‘Network
Switches’ were data communication equipments
and, hence, the same were classified under
Heading No. 8517 50. The assessee filed an
appeal in the Tribunal against the same.
The Tribunal held that the onus was on the
department to prove that the classification
claimed by the assessee was incorrect. In the
instant case, the revenue failed to bring out
the evidence. Therefore, ‘Network Switches’
were classified as ‘other units of automatic
data processing machines’ under Heading
No. 8471 80.
Recovery of food expenses from
employees for canteen services is
taxable under GST: AAR
Caltech Polymers (P.) Ltd. In Re [2018] 92
taxmann.com 142 (AAR - Ker.)
The assessee preferred an application for
Advance Ruling for taxability of recovery of
food expenses from employees for the canteen
service provided by it. It submitted that they
were providing canteen services exclusively
for their employees. All the canteen expenses
were recovered from its employees without
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 50
E-JOURNAL
weekly reView
any profit margin. It further contended that
such service was not being carried out as a
business activity.
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held
that the recovery of food expenses from the
employees for the canteen services provided
by company would come under the definition
of ‘Outward Supply’. Therefore, it would be
taxable as a supply of service under GST.
Sale of goods procured from one
country & supplied to another
doesn’t attract IGST: AAR
Synthite Industries Ltd. In re [2018] 92
taxmann.com 144 (AAR - Ker.)
The assessee received an order from a customer
in USA for the supply of spice products. It
placed a corresponding order to a supplier
in China for supplying the goods ordered by
the customer in USA. The Chinese supplier
shipped the goods directly to the customer
in USA. It issued the invoice to the assessee.
Subsequently, the assessee raised the invoice
on the customer in USA.
The assessee preferred an application for
advance ruling for levy of GST on the sale
of goods to the USA Company, when such
goods were shipped directly from China to
USA without entering India.
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR)
held that the goods were liable to GST when
they were imported into India. Therefore, the
assessee was not liable to GST on the sale
of goods procured from China and directly
supplied to USA, as the goods were not
imported into India at any point.
Statutory Changes
E-way Bill for Intra-State Supplies is
must from April 15 in 5 States
PRESS RELEASE, DATED 10-04-2018
E-way bill is a document to be generated
electronically by the supplier every time
goods involve movement from one place to
another. This mechanism is introduced in
GST to ensure that the taxable goods are
changing hands only after payment of GST.
E-way Bill can be generated from the GST
portal which requires information about the
supplier, recipient, goods, location, etc. This
compliance helps the Govt. to keep a track
of the movement of goods and to check
the tax evasion. An e-way bill has been
bifurcated in two parts, Part A and Part
B. Part A includes all the details related to
the transported goods and invoice related
details. Part B includes Vehicle Number in
which the goods are being transported and
the transport document number.
The requirement to generate an e-way bill is
mandatory when the supply involves taxable
goods and the value of a consignment exceeds
` 50,000. The responsibility of generation of
an e-way bill be on the supplier (consignor)
or recipient (consignee). There is a provision
in Rule 138(7) of the CGST Rules, 2017
which provides that in case the consignor
or consignee has not generated the e-way
bill because the value of consignment is less
than ` 50,000, the transporters are required to
generate E-way bill if aggregate value of all
consignment being carried in the vehicle is
more than ` 50,000 in an inter-State supply.
However, this provision of independently
generating e-way bill by a transporter has
been deferred for the time-being.
From April 1, 2018, it is mandatory to generate
the e-way bill for every inter-State movement
of goods if the consignment value exceeds
` 50,000. However, for movement of goods
within the State, i.e., intra-State supply, it has
been made operational from April 1, 2018
only in the State of Karnataka. The E-way
bill is now made mandatory from April 15,
2018 for intra-State supplies in the states of,
Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Telangana
and Uttar Pradesh.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 51
E-JOURNAL
875
weekly reView
No GST on supply of food directly to
students by schools; Govt. clarifies
PRESS RELEASE, DATED 11-4-2018
Govt. has clarified on two issues regarding
the GST rate applicable on supply of food
and drinks in educational institutions. It has
clarified that GST rate on supply of food and
drinks in a mess or canteen in an educational
institution will attract 5% GST without input
tax credit. But there would be no GST on
supply of food directly to students by schools.
l ll
Income-tax
Technical defect of issuing re-assessment notice in name of erstwhile
entity could be cured u/s 292B: SC
Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Asstt. CIT
[2018] 92 taxmann.com 93 (SC)
The assessee previously called as M/s. Sky
Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd. was presently
known as M/s. Sky Light Hospitality LLP
having converted into LLP from company
under Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008.
Assessing Officer (AO) issued reassessment
notice in name of company which had ceased
to exist and was dissolved. Assessee raised
the contention that the notice issued to a
dead juristic person was invalid and void
in the eyes of law.
Notice may be defective or there may be
omissions but this would not make the
notice a nullity. Validity of a notice has to
be examined from the stand point whether in
substance or in effect it is in conformity and
in accordance with the intent and purpose
of the Act.
In the instant case, re-assessment notice
served on assessee had duly complied with
law and was legal in all respects.
Therefore, re-assessment notice issued in
name of erstwhile company, despite company
ceasing to exist as it had been converted
into LLP, would not invalidate re-assessment
proceedings as same was not a jurisdictional
error, but an irregularity and procedural/
technical lapse which could be cured under
section 292B.
However, AO didn’t accept the said mistake
and held that the notice in the name of
erstwhile company was valid as this error was
protected and shielded under section 292B.
The Supreme Court upheld the order of
High Court which was as under:
Object and purpose behind section 292B is
to ensure that technical pleas on the ground
of mistake, defect or omission should not
invalidate the assessment proceedings, when
no confusion or prejudice is caused due to
non-observance of technical formalities.
876
Market value of other assets has no
role in determining value of shares
of a co. as per rule 11UA
Minda S M Technocast (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
[2018] 92 taxmann.com 29 (Delhi - Trib.)
The assessee-company was deriving its income
under the head ‘rental and interest income’. It
had acquired shares of M/s. Tuff Engineering
Pvt. Ltd. (‘TEPL’) at ` 5 per share.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 52
E-JOURNAL
weekly reView
It valued the shares as per rule
the Income-tax Rules, 1962, i.e.,
of book value of assets of TEPL.
Report from the CA firm was also
in support of claim.
11UA of
on basis
Valuation
produced
The Assessing Officer (AO) was of the view
that the fair market value (FMV) of the land
as per the circle rate should be taken into
consideration while determining the value
of the shares of TEPL. Accordingly, he
substituted the book value of the land with
FMV of the land as per the circle rate and
determined the value of shares at ` 45.72
per shares of TEPL.
The Tribunal held in favour of assessee
as under:
Rule 11UA determines the fair market value of
the property other than immovable property.
On the plain reading of the rule, it is revealed
that while valuing the shares the book value
of the assets and liabilities declared by the
TEPL should be taken into consideration.
There is no whisper under the provision
of rule 11UA to refer the FMV of the land
as was taken by the AO in the year under
consideration. Therefore, the share price
calculated by the assessee of TEPL at ` 5 per
shares had been determined in accordance
with the provisions of rule 11UA. [2018] 92
taxmann.com 29 (Delhi - Trib.)
No denial of exemption just because
DPS made profits from its joint venture with satellite schools
DIT v. Delhi Public School Society [2018]
92 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)
Assessee-Delhi Public School (DPS) Society
was registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 with the Registrar of Societies,
Delhi. It was aggrieved by rejection of its
application for grant of exemption for AY
2008-09 onwards as a charitable organization.
The ADIT rejected its exemption application
on the grounds that the franchise fee received
by DPS from the satellite schools in lieu
of its name, logo and motto amounts to a
“business activity” with a profit motive.
Assessee challenged the rejection order by
filing petition before the High Court.
The High Court held in favour of assessee
as under:
The memorandum of association of DPS
Society, as well as the joint venture agreements
entered into by it with the satellite schools
validated the motive of an educational purpose
that the Assessee aimed through its business
activities.
Assessee had maintained accounts which
had been audited in detail for relevant years
and such accounts had been maintained in
compliance to seventh proviso to section
10(23C)(vi) and section 11(4A).
On review of assessee’s audited accounts, it
could be observed that surpluses accrued to
assessee-society were utilised for maintenance
and management of DPS schools themselves.
Thus, gains arising out of its agreements
were incidental to its educational purpose
outlined by its objective. Therefore, assessee
fulfilled requirements under section 10(23C)
(vi) to qualify for exemption.
NIBM imparting education in field of
banking & finance management was
eligible for sec. 11 relief: ITAT
National Institute of Bank Management
v. Addl. DIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 25
(Mumbai - Trib.)
Assessee-charitable institution was established
by Government of India through Reserve Bank
of India and was responsible for imparting
education in field of banking and finance
management and had an All-India character.
It claimed exemption under sections 11
and 12 which was denied by Assessing
Officer (AO) on grounds that assessee was
holding banking coaching classes, seminars
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 53
E-JOURNAL
877
weekly reView
and training programmes against collection
of fees and that assessee after introduction
of proviso to section 2(15) with effect from
1-4-2009 assessee could only said to be fall
under category of ‘advancement of any other
object of general public utility’.
and WGH) and also they were directors of
the all companies and thus, section 79 had
no application in the case of the assessee as
beneficial owner of the shares remained the
same. AO, however, denied the assessee’s
contention and disallowed set off of losses.
Mumbai ITAT held that assessee was recognised
by a University as an approved centre for
post-graduate research and also by Department
of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry
of Science and Technology, Government of
India.
The Mumbai ITAT held that the word used
in section 79 is … ‘held’ … and not ‘owned’.
This indicates that ownership of the shares
with the same person was not contemplated
for denying the set off of the loss. Furthermore
the word preceding ‘held’ is ‘beneficially’
which is an adjective/adverb of the word
‘benefit’. Therefore, what is to be seen is
whether the benefit of voting rights is held
by the same persons.
Since pertinently, upto assessment year 200809, assessee was accepted to be an entity
engaged in educational activities and in
assessment years under consideration there
was no any change in its activities, merely
because of insertion of proviso to section
2(15), nature of activities would not undergo
a change unless it could be made out that
profit motive was dominant, thus, said proviso
did not disentitle assessee’s activities from
being considered as for charitable purpose.
Ownership of shares by same person
isn’t prerequisite to deny set off of
loss under sec. 79
Wadhwa & Associates Realtors (P.) Ltd.
v. Asstt. CIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 37
(Mumbai - Trib.)
In the instant case, Assessing Officer (AO)
asked the assessee to show cause as to
why the set off of brought forward house
property losses against the current year’s
house property income would not be denied
in view of section 79 as during the year
more than 51% of the shareholding pattern
of the assessee had changed.
The assessee submitted that the two individuals,
i.e. Vijay and Vinita, were the beneficial owner
of the shares of the assessee-company in the
year in which losses were incurred and also
in the year in which losses had been set off
and were the beneficial owner of shares of
the assessee through two companies (RPL
878
The phrase used in section 79(a) ‘beneficially
held by persons who beneficially held’ would
indicate indirect control of voting rights through
Vijay and Vinita through their shareholding in
RPL and WGH could be said to be holding
51% voting power in the company. Therefore,
the assessee was entitled to set off the loss
under consideration in the assessment year.
AO couldn’t recover tax dues of
mining dept. from person who was
awarded tender for settlement of
Sand Ghats
Sainik Food (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT [2018] 92
taxmann.com 9 (Patna)
The Patna High Court held that section
226(3)(x) does not confer arbitrary power to
Income-tax department to recover amount
of tax liability of mining department from
innocent person.
In the instant case, assessee-company was
awarded tender for settlement of Sand Ghats
located in different districts and it was
required to pay settlement amount in three
instalments with simultaneous payment of
required amount of tax to Sale Tax Department.
It received notice under section 226(3) and was
called upon to deposit a sum being income-
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 54
E-JOURNAL
weekly reView
tax liability of Mining department for default
in deducting TCS from various settlements
including that of assessee. Thereafter, incometax authorities had arbitrarily deducted said
amount from bank account of assessee.
It was found that no action was taken
by Income-tax department against Mining
department for failure to deposit TCS under
sections 276B and 276BB. Further, Income-tax
department had not carried out any factual
enquiry to examine whether there was any
liability to be paid by assessee in connection
with settlement of Sand Ghat.
The HC held that the tax was the liability
of the Mines and Geology Department and
instead of taking coercive action under section
276B and section 276BB, action of Income-tax
Department by attaching the bank account
and directing the same to be recovered
from the account of the assessee was most
unreasonable.
all related parties with whom taxpayer enters
into transaction but also with the country of
residence of the immediate parent company
and the ultimate parent company. Therefore,
in order to implement the recommendations
made under Action 5 of BEPS Action Plan to
bring greater transparency in cross national
transactions, Forms 34C and 34D (Forms for
advance rulings) are required to be modified
so that details such as name, address and
country of the residence of non-resident’s
immediate parent company or ultimate parent
company are captured at application stage
itself.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)
has issued draft notification proposing an
amendment to Rule 44E of the Income-tax
Rules, 1961 and Forms 34C, 34D, 34DA as
per Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)
Action 5. The stakeholders are requested to
send their comments/suggestions on the draft
notification by 25-4-2018 at ts.mapwal@nic.in
Statutory Changes
CBDT amends PAN application form,
transgender included in gender column for individual applicant
CBDT issues draft notification proposing amendment to Rule 44E in
line with BEPS Action 5
NOTIFICATION [F.NO.370142/34/2016-TPL
(PART)], DATED 10-4-2018
Under Base Erosion and Profit Shifting
(BEPS) Action 5, exchange of Permanent
Establishment (PE) rulings (by Authority for
Advance Rulings) are required to be done
not only with the countries of residence of
NOTIFICATION NO. GSR 352(E) [NO.18/2018
(F.NO.370142/30/2016-TPL)], DATED 9-4-2018
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)
has amended Form Nos. 49A and 49AA for
application for allotment of Permanent Account
Number (PAN). CBDT has incorporated
‘Transgender’ in the column related to Gender
in case of individual applicant.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 55
E-JOURNAL
l ll
879
weekly reView
Corporate Laws
Arbitral proceedings couldn’t be
initiated during moratorium period:
NCLAT
K. S. Oils Ltd. v. State Trade Corporation
of India Ltd. [2018] 91 taxmann.com 423
(NCL-AT)
IBC: Arbitral proceedings pending between
corporate debtor and financial creditor could
not be proceeded with during moratorium
period
HC sets aside auction sale when
company court failed to consider
validity of sale
Alex Philip v. Ramangalam Tile Works Co.
Ltd. [2018] 91 taxmann.com 468 (Kerala)
CL: Where Company Court failed to consider
important aspects as to validity of auction
sale under sections 536 & 537 of the Act and
issuance of winding up notice, impugned
order setting aside sale in question was to
be set aside
Insolvency process was to be rejected due to existence of dispute
between parties prior to issue of
notice
Amar Tours & Transport v. Go Airlines
(India) Ltd. [2018] 91 taxmann.com 474
(NCLT - New Delhi)
under section 8, corporate debtor raised a
dispute regarding falsification and tampering
of invoices, forged parking receipts including
wrong billing by operational creditor, there
was pre-existence of dispute and, hence,
application under section 9 was to be rejected
Application for insolvency resolution
process admitted due to existence of
financial debts: NCLAT
Atul Sharma v. Gudearth Homes Infracon
(P.) Ltd. [2018] 92 taxmann.com 13 (NCLAT)
IBC: Where there were records to prove
that on different dates financial creditor had
provided financial assistance to corporate
debtor, argument advanced by corporate
debtor that there was no debt could not be
accepted
Winding up petition was to be
admitted on non-payment of loan
liability: HC
Vandana Global Ltd. Mumbai v. IL & FS
Financial Services Ltd. [2018] 92 taxmann.
com 12 (Bombay)
CL: Where appellant-associate company had
entered into option agreement with respondentbank which was in nature of guarantee for
payment of loan taken by borrower from
respondent, winding up petition against
appellant was to be admitted on non-payment
of loan liability.
IBC: Where prior to issue of demand notice
880
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 56
E-JOURNAL
weekly reView
Statutory changes
RBI prohibits regulated entities from
dealing in Bitcoins and other virtual
Currencies
IBBI specifies procedure to be followed for registration as a Registered Valuer
CIRCULAR NO. DBR.NO.BP.BC.104/ 08.13.102/
2017-18, DATED 6-4-2018
PRESS RELEASE, DATED 4-4-2018
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
has specified the procedure to be followed for
registration as a Registered Valuer with the
Authority under the Companies (Registered
Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017
Clearing Corporations must ensure
guarantee for settlement of trades:
SEBI
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has banned
regulated entities like banks from dealing
in or providing services to any individuals
or business entities dealing with or settling
virtual currencies with an immediate effect.
This move came after giving three warnings
to the public at large for being cautious
while dealing in crypto - currencies. Further,
the RBI has given three months to regulated
entities like banks to exit the relationship
with entities dealing with crypto - currencies.
NOTIFICATION NO. SEBI/LAD-NRO/
GN/2018/04, DATED 2-4-2018
The Securities and Exchange Board of India
(SEBI) has amended the Securities Contracts
(Regulation) (Stock Exchanges and Clearing
Corporations) Regulation 2012 wherein it has
been specified that every recognized clearing
corporation providing clearing and settlement
services for commodity derivatives shall ensure
guarantee for settlement of trades including
goods delivery.
RBI keeps repo - rate unchanged at
6%
RBI revises investment limits for
foreign investors in Govt. securities
NOTIFICATION NO. 3 OF 2018, DATED
5-4-2018
The Reserve Bank of India has revised
the Investment limit for Foreign Portfolios
Investors in Central Government securities.
The investment limit would be increased by
0.5% each year to 5.5% of outstanding stock of
securities in 2018 -19 and 6% of outstanding
stock of securities in 2019-20.
RBI reviews comprehensive guidelines on Derivatives
PRESS RELEASE, 5-4-2018
On the basis of an assessment of the current
and evolving macro-economic situation, the
Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) has decided
to keep the policy on repo - rate under the
liquidity adjustment facility (LAF) unchanged
at 6.0 %. Consequently, the reverse repo rate under the LAF remains at 5.75 %, and
the marginal standing facility (MSF) rate and
the Bank Rate at 6.25 %.
CIRCULAR NO. DBR.NO.BP.BC.103/21.04.157/
2017-18, DATED 6-4-2018
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has reviewed
the comprehensive guidelines on Derivatives.
Now, it has been decided that standalone
plan vanilla forex options purchased by
clients will be exempted from the ‘user
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 57
E-JOURNAL
881
weekly reView
suitability and appropriateness’ norms. The
regulatory requirements will be at par with
forex forward contracts.
SEBI introduces new system for
monitoring foreign investment limits
in listed Indian companies
for the Lead District Managers. The Bank said
that lead district managers play a critical role
and asked bank heads to ensure that they
possess necessary leadership skills that they
are provided with office infrastructure, skilled
computer operator and are given a vehicle.
No new LLP can be formed due to
withholding allotment of new DIN to
partners of LLPs
CIRCULAR IMD/FPIC/CIR/P/2018/61, DATED
5-4-2018
The Market Regulator, Securities and Exchange
Board of India has introduced the new
system for monitoring of foreign investment
limits in listed Indian companies which shall
be made operational on May 1, 2018. The
existing mechanism for monitoring the foreign
investment limits shall be done away with
once the new system is operationalized.
RBI issues action points for lead
banks on enhancing effectiveness of
lead district managers
CIRCULAR NO. FIDD.CO.LBS.BC.NO.20/
02.01.001/2017-18, DATED 6-4-2018
On basis of the recommendations received
from ‘Committee of Executive Directors’ of
bank to study the efficacy of the Lead Bank
Scheme, RBI has come up with action points
882
PRESS RELEASE, DATED 9-4-2017
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has
issued a notice on its website with respect to
Temporary suspension of issuance of allotment
of new DINs for Designated Partners/Partners
of LLPs is being extended till further notice.
A suitable message would be posted on the
portal after revised DIR-3 is made available
for filing purposes for issuance of new DPIN/
DINs for Partners of proposed LLPs.
Earlier, the MCA had re-engineered the whole
process of allotment of DIN by allotting
DIN to individuals only at the time of their
appointment as Directors (If they did NOT
possess a DIN) in companies and process
for allotment of DPIN for LLPs were kept
on hold till 31-3-2018.
April 21 To April 27, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 58
E-JOURNAL
l ll